COMMISSIONER, VIRUDHUNAGAR MUNICIPALITY vs A.K.DURAISINGH

THIS appeal is by the opposite party, Commissioner, Virudhunagar Municipality, who is aggrieved by an order of the District Forum granting to the complainant. It appears that the complainant''s mother owned a house property, having purchased it on 14.3.90. She died on 5.11.92. The complainant filed an application for transfer of the tax assessment in his name. It was so transferred on 7.1.93, but subsequently, it appears that on an application made by someone else, the assessment was changed into his name from the complainant''s name on 26.2.93. Ag- grieved by this order, the complainant has approached the District Forum for a direction to the opposite party to re-transfer the assessment order in his name and also for compensation.

THE opposite party contested the matter contending that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable in the District Forum. The District Forum rejected the contention of the opposite party, and holding that the complainant is a consumer and he is entitled for an award, it directed the opposite party to cancel the order passed by it on 26.2.93 and passed an order in favour of the complainant, and also to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation.

It is now in the appeal again contended by the appellant/opposite party that the complainant is not a consumer and therefore the District Forum had no jurisdiction to try the case.

ON going through the records and also after hearing the learned Counsel for the respondent (appellant''s Counsel being absent), we find that there is much force in the contentions of the opposite party/appellant and therefore the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained. The question of ordering change of assessment is a statutory function of the Municipality. There is no question of hiring or availing of their services by anyone. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant that the complainant has paid application fee for change of the assessment order in his name and that constitutes "consideration" and this would create a relationship of consumer and provider of Service. We do not agree. Payment of application fee is not a consideration for any service. Application fee is paid as per the Rules. Therefore, the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer at all. Hence, the District Forum has been in error in holding that the complainant is a consumer and awarding reliefs as prayed for by the complainant. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as costs. Appeal allowed.