LAXMI NARAIN GOEL vs Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board

THE complainant, Shri Laxmi Narain Goel, Advocate before the District Forum, Bathinda in complaint No. 13 of 1991 on its file has preferred this appeal against the order of the District Forum dated May 27, 1992, rejecting the said complaint on the ground that it is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act''). THE facts of the case are not in dispute and deserve notice with brevity. THE complainant''s case is that he is a resident of Bathinda and he is assessed to house tax and he has been paying water and electricity charges to the concerned departments and therefore, he is entitled to all civic amenities within the definition of the ''consumer'' under the Act. It is alleged that the Sewerage System laid by the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board in Bathinda Town is in a very bad shape, which deteriorates during the rainy season. It is stated that on the night intervening 30th June/1st July, 1988, his House No. 3042, Power House Road, Bathinda was flooded due to heavy rains and on 7.9.1990, his entire house was full with sewerage water due to heavy rains and the opposite-parties did not pay any heed to the complaints made by him. It is further stated that the entire vehicular traffic of the main Bus Stand had been diverted by the opposite parties to the area where his house was situated and the open drain constructed in front of his house invariably remained choked. THE prayer in the complaint was for the award of is. 99,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the loss and injury suffered by him and also for the direction being issued to the opposite parties for maintaining the Sewerage System in a proper manner.

ON notice being issued, the opposite-parties raised a preliminary objection that the complainant is neither a ''consumer'' nor the opposite-parties rendered any service to him and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable under the Act. ON merits, the opposite-parties stoutly controverted the allegations of the complainant. It was pleaded by the opposite-party No.1 that the Sewerage System was introduced in Bathinda and it was working efficiently. The Municipal Committee, Bathinda (Respondent No.2) pleaded that the Sewerage Board was getting substantial amount from the Municipal Committee for the maintenance of sewerage system and that the Board had spent crores of rupees for the installation/improvement in laying the sewerage system in Bathinda. The respondent No.2 pleaded that the open drain in front of the house of the complainant was being regularly cleaned by its ''Safai Karamcharies''. Both the parties placed on record some documents in support of their respective claims. The District Forum considered as a primary issue the question of maintainability of the complaint. After discussing the said point in elaborate detail with reference to the definition of the expressions ''complaint'', ''consumer'' and ''service'' contained in Section 2(1) of the Act, the District Forum held that since the complainant had not hired any services for consideration from the opposite-parties for the purpose of maintaining the sewerage system, he cannot be considered as a ''consumer'' and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable under the Act. The correctness of this conclusion has been challenged before us by the complainant in appeal.

The learned Counsel for the complainantappellant has vehemently argued that the members of the public pay house tax and other taxes to the Government and that the sewerage system is maintained by the Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board out of the revenue so secured and the payment of taxes is therefore, sufficient consideration for the service of maintenance of sewerage system. This argument of the learned Counsel misses the most essential feature of the concept of hire. The consideration for hire, be it called fee, charge or rent is that it is voluntary payment, it is open to a person to make the payment and hire the service or refuse to pay and forego the service. A tax on the other hand is a leavy or imposition made by the Government for public purpose. There is no element of voluntariness in the payment of tax. No tax payer has the option to refuse to pay the tax legally imposed on him. It is, therefore, clear that the payment of tax to the Government cannot be construed as consideration for the services rendered by the Government.

THIS point has been answered directly by the National Commission in Consumers Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan, II (1991) CPJ 56 =1991 (1) C.P.R., 241= It has been held in that decision that the payment of taxes cannot be regarded as consideration for service rendered by the Government. The same principle applies to taxes paid to the Municipal Committee. We, therefore, agree with the conclusion of the District Forum and hold that the complainant-appellant is not a ''consumer''. During the course of arguments, Mr. Rakesh Garg, Advocate for the complainant-appellant candidly conceded before us that a Civil Writ Petition No. 13495 of 1991 filed by the complainant and other residents of Bathinda is pending in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh with the same allegations as averred in the complaint. When the matter is sub-judice before the High Court on its original side, the Forum under the Act cannot and will not entertain any claim for compensation in respect of the identical subject matter.

NO other meaningful argument could be advanced on behalf of the appellant. Since, we are in agreement with the line of reasoning given by the District Forum, it is unnecessary to traverse the same ground again. It suffices to hold that we affirm the same. This appeal is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.