HEERA LAL BANSALI vs NAGAR NIGAM, KOTA

HEARD. These cross-appeals by the parties to Complaint No. 135/2002 arise out of the order made by the D.F., Kota on 6.3.2003.

THE facts, relevant to and sufficient for disposal of both these appeals, are that in order to obtain the sanction of the Nagar Nigam, Kota in respect to construct his house, Heeralal complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 50/- with the concerned employees of the Nagar Nigam. His grievance was that the concerned authority did not accord his sanction and approve the site map for carrying on construction on the residential plot and thereby rendered deficient services to him. The Nagar Nigam had opposed the maintainability of the complaint itself on the ground that the dispute relating to the ownership rights of the plot in question, was pending for disposal before the Civil Courts.

The D.F., however, held that the Nagar Nigam had rendered deficient services to the complainant by not according the required sanction and approving the site map submitted along with the application, for construction of the residential house by the complainant on the plot in question. The D.F. awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost at Rs. 500/- to the complainant. Both the parties felt dissatisfied with such order of the D.F. and have, therefore, filed their respective appeals before the Commission.

RELYING upon the decision of this Commission in the case of Municipal Council, Ajmer v. Arun Sharma, II (2004) CPJ 324, the learned Counsel for the complainant urged that since the Nagar Nigam had failed to accord the required sanction to the complainant for constructing his house as per site map submitted along with the application, they had rendered deficient services to the complainant. The learned Counsel for the Nagar Nigam however submitted that the relevant rules, governing the issue under consideration, provided the remedy of appeal/revision against the order of acceptance or rejection of the application of the complainant for sanction of permission to construct the building on a plot and, therefore, the Forums under the C.P. Act, 1986 had no jurisdiction to entertain such petitions. It is evident from the pleadings of the parties that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 50/- to the concerned officials of the Nagar Nigam according to the prescribed rules. The amount of Rs. 50/- was, therefore, charged by the concerned employees of the Nagar Nigam, as specified under the relevant rules, to render services to them in the discharge of their official duties. Since the prescribed fees were charged for carrying out the statutory official duties by the employees of the Nagar Nigam, they cannot be said to be rendering services to the complainant for consideration.

APART from the above, it is not in dispute that the order of acceptance or rejection of the application of the complainant was appealable/revisable under the provisions of the relevant Act. In view of the above neither the complainant was a "consumer" of the services of the Nagar Nigam for consideration nor the dispute between the parties constituted a "consumer dispute" within the meaning of the terms defined in the C.P. Act, 1986. In the case of Municipal Council, Ajmer v. Arun Sharma, the complainant had hired the services of sanitary personnels of the respondent to get the septic tank emptied. Since the Municipal Council had undertaken to render such services to the residents of the locality for consideration the complaint by the aggrieved person was maintainable. The ratio-decidendi of that case is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the case before us.

IN the result, the impugned order is set aside and the Appeal No. 778/2003 filed by the Nagar Nigam is allowed but Appeal No. 773/2003 filed by the complainant is dismissed with liberty to him to seek his remedy from appropriate Forum. Cost on parties throughout. Ordered accordingly.