ORDER : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Assailing the Order, dated 31.03.2011, passed in C.C. No. 53 of 2010, on the file the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Chittoor, the present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The circumstances which lead to filing of the present writ petition are as under: (i) The Complainant is the father of one late L. Thulasi Lakshmi [‘deceased’], who while working as Secondary Grade Teacher in Elementary School at Motlapalle Village, V.Kota Mandal, Chittoor District, died on 26.04.2006. As the Complainant was nominated as a ‘nominee’ by the deceased in her Service Register, to receive all the benefits on her death from the Government, approached the Mandal Educational Officer, V.Kota Mandal (1st Opposite Party) for payment of all benefits. It is said that though the Mandal Educational Officer has disbursed the benefits like A.P.G.L.I.C, G.P.F, GIS, Death Fund etc., in the year 2008 itself, but for reasons best known, he has not paid an amount of Rs. 30,000/- towards General Insurance Scheme and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards death fund. 3. It is said that Mandal Educational Officer, V.Kota Mandal passed an Order and accorded sanction for payment of Rs.30,412/- to the Complainant, which was not only affirmed by the District Audit Officer of State Audit Office, Chittoor, but also authorized the authorities concerned to pay a sum of Rs.30,421/- towards refund of General Insurance Scheme amount. The material on record would show that the Sub Treasury Officer, Palamaner, has also passed paper token dated 03.08.2006 for taking Demand Draft for Rs. 30,000/- towards General Insurance Scheme and Rs. 2,000/- towards death fund in the name of T.Jayanthaiah, the then M.E.O, V.Kota Mandal payable to the complainant. But, it is said that the Demand Draft though executed was not paid to the complainant. The deficiency in service of Mandal Educational Officer along with District Educational Officer made the complainant to file the above complaint. 4. Written statement came to be filed by the Mandal Educational Officer disputing the averments made in the complaint. It is said that the Son-in-law of the Complainant, who is husband of the deceased has approached the authorities in respect of the claim made by the father of the deceased, on the ground that he being the husband, is entitled for the said claim. It is said that the Son-in-law of the Complainant, who is husband of the deceased has approached the authorities in respect of the claim made by the father of the deceased, on the ground that he being the husband, is entitled for the said claim. The District Educational Officer appears to have issued the proceedings dated 19.10.2010 to the Mandal Educational Officer, requesting him to draw the benefits of the deceased and disburse the same to the legal heirs of the deceased as per the rules in force. 5. No written statement is filed by the 3rd Opposite Party, disputing the claim made. 6. In support of his case, the complainant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. No oral evidence or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Opposite Parties and in fact they did not file even evidence in the form of affidavit as well as documents. 7. Considering the material available on record, the District Forum directed the Mandal Educational Officer to pay a sum of Rs. 32,412/- with interest at 12% p.a from the date of death of the deceased i.e. 26.04.2006, till date of payment with costs of Rs. 3,000/-. The complaint against Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed by the 1st Opposite Party/Petitioner. 8. Mr. Ch. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that this being a service matter namely payment of service benefits to the nominee of the deceased -employee, the same does not attract the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In other words, his argument appears to be that no complaint could have been entertained by the District Consumer Forum, seeking compensation in a matter of this nature. He further submits that the amount claimed by the complainant was paid in the year 2011 itself by way of Demand Draft, which was encashed. Having regard to the above, question of payment of any money further with interest would not arise. 9. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent opposed the same contending that the material on record more particularly the evidence adduced by the complainant [1st Respondent] clearly indicate that there is a deficiency of service as the benefits, which the nominee of the deceased is entitled to, are not paid by the writ petitioner. 10. 9. Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent opposed the same contending that the material on record more particularly the evidence adduced by the complainant [1st Respondent] clearly indicate that there is a deficiency of service as the benefits, which the nominee of the deceased is entitled to, are not paid by the writ petitioner. 10. He further submits that the complainant was made to go around the Mandal Educational Officer for a period of four years i.e., from the year 2006, when his daughter died. Further, the attitude of the Petitioner in not filing a sworn affidavit before the forum disputing the claim made, is sufficient to uphold the order of the District Forum. Learned counsel further submits that a reading of the Para 6 of the affidavit filed before this Court would show that the grievance of the petitioner is only with regard to interest awarded on compensation and not otherwise. If really the petitioner is aggrieved with the order directing payment of Rs. 32,412/- definitely their plea in the writ petition would have been otherwise. 11. He further submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, when the person in authority, who has to release the amount, is not made a party to the proceedings, more so, when there is an effective statutory remedy of appeal provided under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 12. In reply, Mr. Ch. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the State Commission was not functioning at the relevant time, he was forced to approach this Court by filing the writ petition. In so far as the relief sought in the writ petition is concerned, he submits that though in Para 5 of the Affidavit it has been mentioned that the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the interest awarded, but a reading of the main prayer in the writ petition would show that the petitioner was aggrieved by the award of the District Consumer Forum. He further submits that as the issue relates to jurisdiction of the forum in deciding the issue, there is no bar to raise the same before this court in the writ petition. 13. It is not doubt true that the Petitioners herein have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without approaching the State Forum against the Order passed by the District Forum. 13. It is not doubt true that the Petitioners herein have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without approaching the State Forum against the Order passed by the District Forum. The reason given by the Petitioners was that the State Forum was not functional at that relevant point of time and, as such, they were forced to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. The same is disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent stating that the State Forum was in-fact functioning at that relevant point of time and Orders were also passed entertaining the appeals. 15. It is to be noted here that this Writ Petition was filed in the year 2011. It appears from the record that a vacate application was filed in the year 2012 itself, but for some reason the same was not taken up. The functioning of State Forum in the year 2011 is sought to be proved now by filing a print out taken on 03.02.2022, to show that a case filed before the State Forum on 08.08.2011 was disposed off. Since the Writ Petition was entertained in the year 2011 itself and an interim Order also came to be passed on 22.12.2011, it may not be proper for this Court to relegate the matter back to the State Forum after 11 years. 16. The only issue raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that, this being a service matter, the same does not fall within the meaning of “Consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, and, as such, the District Forum ought not to have entertained the complaint. 17. The same is opposed by the learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent contending that the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ministry of Water Resources & Ors. V. Shreepat Rao Kamde, 2020 (1) CPJ 30 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not apply to the facts of the case. 17. The same is opposed by the learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent contending that the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ministry of Water Resources & Ors. V. Shreepat Rao Kamde, 2020 (1) CPJ 30 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not apply to the facts of the case. According to him, in the instant case, the dispute relates to payment of amounts due under General Insurance Scheme and death fund by the employer of the deceased person and the grievance in paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition would show that the Petitioner was more concerned with payment of interest to the complainant from the date of death of the daughter of the complainant. 18. It is not in dispute that the amount of Rs.32,412/- as directed by the District Forum was said to have been paid and the dispute as agreed upon now relates only to payment of interest. 19. Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, reads as under: (d) “Consumer” means any person who,- (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 12 [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person 13 [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose] 20. The question now is, whether in a matter of this nature, the District Forum was right in entertaining the complaint? 21. The question now is, whether in a matter of this nature, the District Forum was right in entertaining the complaint? 21. In Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Others V. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Others, (2013) 10 SCC 136 and Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa V. Santosh Kumar Sahoo, (2010) 8 SCC 353 the Court dealt with an issue namely as to whether the benefits which a Government Servant is entitled to on retirement can be agitated before the District Forum. After considering the relevant cases on the subject, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat [cited 2nd above] held as under: “20. In view of the above, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination can a government servant raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the forum under the Act. The government servant does not fall under the definition of a “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any of his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or the civil court but certainly not a forum under the Act. 21. In view of the above, we hold that the government servant cannot approach any of the forum under the Act for any of the retiral benefits.” 22. The said Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was subsequently referred to and followed in Shreepat Rao Kamde [cited 1st supra]. In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with payment of interest on delayed payment of General Provident Fund dues and for compensation etc. After referring to the judgments in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat [cited 2nd above] and Santosh Kumar Sahoo [cited 3rd above], the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “21. This Court had directed the appellant to deposit the sum in question in the Registry of the District Forum. That direction has been complied with. After referring to the judgments in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat [cited 2nd above] and Santosh Kumar Sahoo [cited 3rd above], the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “21. This Court had directed the appellant to deposit the sum in question in the Registry of the District Forum. That direction has been complied with. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, where the respondent had initiated the litigation way back in the year 2011, even if we have found that the complaint was not maintainable, it is directed that the respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the deposited sum without furnishing any security. If any security was furnished in terms of the earlier directions, the same shall stand discharged.” 23. The dispute, in the instant case, relates to payment of G.I.S. and death fund along with interest. The amount due under G.I.S. and death fund were said to have been paid by the employer, but the dispute, as stated earlier, is only with regard to the interest. The claim made now is almost identical to the one made in Shreepat Rao Kamde [cited 1st supra], wherein, the dispute was also with regard to interest for delayed payments of G.P.F. 24. Having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to above and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the complaint could not have been entertained by the District Forum. However, as the litigation started way back in the year 2011, and as the due amount was already paid, we feel that the Writ Petitioner shall not take steps for recovery of the amount paid to Respondent No. 1, but, however, the 1st Respondent is at liberty to take steps for recovery of interest in accordance with law. 25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off directing the Petitioner not to take any steps for recovery of the amount paid to Respondent No. 1, but, however, the 1st Respondent is at liberty to take steps for recovery of the interest in accordance with law. No Order as to costs. 26. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.