THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 2269 of 2005 Between: The Collector Mahabubnagar ..... PETITIONER AND Boya Venkataiah S/o Kurmanna and two others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the second respondent, the District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar, in C.D.No. 286 of 2001 dated 13.11.2003 and also the orders of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad passed in F.A.No. 1230 of 2003 dated 29.10.2004 and quash the same as being illegal. Brief facts of the case are that the first respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards ex-gratia under Apathbandhu Insurance Scheme together with interest and pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and also to pay the costs of proceedings. It is averred in the complaint that the son of the complainant by name Anjaneyulu who was aged 13 years was a student of Lalkota High School. He died accidentally on 11.7.1999 while he was watching the cricket game in the high school ground. He and some other students were on the in-completed school building portion. The balcony of the building fell on him and he died on the spot. The complainant gave a report in the police station C.C.Kunta and a case was registered in Cr.No. 31 of 1999 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, inquest was held over the dead body. The Complainant approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, C.C.Kunta for payment of ex-gratia under personal Accident Insurance Scheme (Apathbandhu). On the report of Mandal Revenue Officer, C.C.Kunta, Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet recommended to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, who is opposite party for payment of Rs. 50,000/- under the said scheme on 22.1.2000. It is stated that the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, kept the matter pending for more than one year. The District Collector, Mahabubnagar filed counter stating that on 2.10.1998 the Government of A.P. launched a Social Security Scheme namely “Personal Accident Insurance Scheme (Apathbandhu). It is stated that the scheme is intended to cover accidental deaths to persons who are below the poverty line. The policy period under the scheme was from 2.10.1998 to 1.10.1999. Under the scheme, persons who die due to accidents between the age group of 5 to 17 will be paid ex-gratia of Rs.50,000/- and the persons between the age group of 18 to 69 will be paid Rs. 1 lakh provided their annual income is below Rs. 11,000/-. It is stated that since the claim was received after expiry of the policy year, the claim of the complainant is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed with costs. After considering the matter elaborately, the District Consumer Forum allowed the matter in part and the District Collector was directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- together with interest thereon at 9% p.a from 27.11.2001 till date of payment and Rs. 500/- towards costs of proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of communication of that order. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried to the State Forum and the State Forum confirmed the order passed by the District Consumer Forum. The learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and he has drawn our attention to Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which 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 for 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 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 (but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose. (Explanation :- For the purposes of this clause, ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self –employment.) He stated that the son of the complainant died in the premises on account of fall of the wall and this by itself does not come within the purview of the definition of “consumer”. He also drawn our attention to Section 2(e) and 2(g) of the Act, which read as under: Section 2(e) “consumer dispute” means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegation contained in the complaint; Section 2(g) “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.” We see some force in the contention of the learned Government Pleader that statutory and contractual obligations are missing and hence, it does not amount to deficiency. Be that as it may, in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that the appellant-Government paid a premium of 2.10 crores and obtained the policy from the Insurance Company, which agreed to insure 2000 deaths. The policy period under the scheme i.e., from 2.10.1998 to 1.10.1999 covers only 144 cases for mahabubnagar district and that any claims received there after cannot be settled. Though the claim was made by the complainant after expiry of the policy period, the fact remains that the accidental death occurred during the period the policy was in force and under the scheme, an ex-gratia of Rs. 50,000/- is payable to persons between age group 5 to 17 years and Rs. 1 lakh to persons between 18 to 69 years whose annual income is below Rs. 11,000/-. It is stated that as directed by the District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar, the District Collector deposited the amount towards ex- gratia, therefore, we are not inclined to disturb that finding and the first respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount so deposited without furnishing any security. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Dt: 22.10.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.