CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION vs Apurba Kumar Basu

THIS is a revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, in S.C. Case No. 11/A/1994, That appeal was filed by the complainant against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Calcutta by which it had dismissed the complaint filed by the present respondent Dr. Apurba Kumar Basu. Two learned Members of the State Commission accepted the appeal and allowed relief to the complainant. However, the President of the Commission passed a dissenting Order dismissing the appeal. This revision petition is in fact, against the majority view of the State Commission.

IT is not necessary to give the detailed facts of the case. Suffice to say that the complainant is owner of Flat No. 1/108, Gariahat Road (South), Calcutta. In the general re -valuation, the valuation of this flat was assessed at Rs. 6,750/as against the previous annual general valuation of Rs. 5,616/ -. The complainant visited the office of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal to enquire about the process of filing an appeal. The officials of the Tribunal asked the complainant to pay Court fee on the disputed valuation alongwith other incidental expenses. They also refused to give him the time limit during which the case could be disposed of. The complainant filed the complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for getting relief of getting the annual valuation for his flat reduced. He alleged many grounds to show that the valuation arrived at in the annual general valuation is on the higher side and was discriminatory. The present petitioner who was opposite party in the complaint contended that an assessee is not a consumer of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. It was further contended that the comparison between two buildings in the same locality does not stand good as they differ on various points such as the position of the land, transport facility etc.

THE District Forum relying upon the order of this Commission passed in Lalchand v. Commissioner M.C.D., II (1992) CPJ 363 (NC), held that the complainant cannot be regarded as a consumer as the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter of assessment of valuation arrived at by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation for the purpose of house -tax and the proper alternative for the complainant was to file an appeal before the Assessment Tribunal as provided under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act.

FEELING aggrieved against that order the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. As noticed above, two members of the Commission held that the decision arrived at by the National Commission in Lal Chands case (supra) does not hold good on the facts as well as on the ground that the said decision had been rendered long before the amendment of the Consumer Protection Act in 1993. The two Members accepted the appeal and directed the opposite party to consider the case of the complainant in the matter of fixation of annual valuation at Rs. 2,384/ - keeping parity with the annual valuation made in the case of other flats / building owners of the same locality situated in similar circumstances. The President of the Commission, however, is of the view that Lal Chands case was applicable to the present case and thus the complainant was not a consumer. He accordingly ordered that the appeal should be dismissed. We have heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent complainant who appeared in person. We are of opinion that the present revision petition is liable to be accepted. We have not been able to understand the view of the two learned Members of the State Commission that in view of the amendment of the Consumer Protection Act by the Amending Act of 1993 the ratio in Lal Chands case does not apply to the present case. The Members have not given any reasons for making the said observation. We are of opinion that the amendments in the Act introduced in 1993 do not make the present complainant consumer of the services of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation.

THE case is fully covered by the observations made by this Commission in Lal Chands case (supra). In that case the State Commission, Delhi had held that house tax levied by the Municipal Corporation under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was in the nature of a tax, that the levy of the tax is not dependent upon providing of civil amenities to the house owners or occupiers and that the complaint about the quantum of the assessment of the tax or the fixation of the rateable value of the house for the purpose of tax was not entertainable by the Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Against that order, the complainant filed revision petition before this Commission. This Commission upheld the view of the State Commission and further remarked that the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1986 provides means for redress to assessee in case the assessee considers that the tax is not either leviable or has not been fixed in accordance with law and in any case, the assessment and collection of house tax is not a consideration for any service rendered or to be rendered by the Corporation to the house owners of Delhi. There is no nexus between the tax and the services rendered by the Municipality and any complaint about levy and collection of such tax does not make the assessee a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act also an Assessment Tribunal has been constituted if the valuation is disputed. The complainant in fact approached the Office of the Tribunal, but did not institute any proceedings as he was directed to pay Court fee on the disputed valuation plus other incidental expenses for filing the appeal against the assessment and no time limit was given to him for disposal of the appeal. These are no grounds for not preferring an appeal before the Tribunal against the assessment.

BEFORE parting with this case we may remark that the learned President of the Commission has remarked in his order that in an earlier case the Commission consisting of the President and the present two Members had held in a previous appeal of the same nature, relying on Lal Chands case that an assessee of Municipal Tax is not entitled to any relief by way of re -fixation of tax as a consumer before any Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It is not understood how the two learned Members failed to notice their earlier decision. In case they wanted to depart from their earlier view, they ought to have given some reasons for the same. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the majority view of the two learned Members of the State Commission is liable to be set aside as it is erroneous in law and without jurisdiction. The complainant cannot be held to be consumer. Accordingly, we allow the present appeal and set aside the order of the State Commission and restore that of the District Forum dismissing the complaint. We leave the parties to bear their costs. Appeal allowed.