M.R.REDDY vs D.BALAIAH

THESE two appeals arise out of one order passed by the District For urn in O.P. No. 1749/93. In award has been passed against opposite parties 2 & 3 against which they have filed Appeal No. 1000/ 95 and the complainant has filed Appeal No. 1178/95 for enhancement of compensation. The case of the complainant appears to be that he is paying water tax to the 1st opposite party, Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, and they are supplying water for that area in which the complainant is residing but they have engaged opposite parties 2 & 3 and they are supplying water only to those people who are paying a sum of 0.25 Ps. per 17 liters. This is illegal. Because of this attitude of the opposite parties the tenants in the house of the complainant are not getting water unless they pay the said sum to the opposite parties 2 & 3. Because of this the complainant had to purchase water from outside and he has spent a sum of Rs. 10,000/- therefore and besides he has suffered mental agony for which the opposite party shallpay him a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.

ALL the 3 opposite parties opposed the petition. The first opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer and there is no water pipe line and the first opposite party has constructed a steel tank and water is filled in it and from that water is distributed to the people in that area and the first opposite party has nothing to do with the opposite parties 2 & 3. The opposite parties 2 & 3 contend that they are only serving the people of the locality who have formed an Association and for proper supply of water for the association they are collecting some fees and the opposite parties 2 & 3 are doing free service. They also contend that the complainant is not a consumer vis-a-vis them. The District Forum on consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the complainant is not a consumer via-a-vis, not only the first opposite party but also the opposite parties 2 & 3. But still however it has given an award for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- against opposite parties 2 & 3 and also directed them to pay a cost of Rs. 300/-.

Aggrieved by this order opposite parties 2 & 3 have filed an appeal and the complainant has, as stated above, filed an appeal for enhancement of compensation.

AFTER hearing both sides and also going through the records we are quite satisfied that the award passed by the District Forum is not sustainable considering its own findings. The District Forum itself has found as aforementioned above that the complainant is not the consumer as regards the first opposite party. Regarding the opposite parties 2 & 3 also it has categorically stated as follows :- "It is of course true that the complainant has not purchased goods from the opposite parties 2 &3 or hired services for consideration." Inspite of it, it has passed an award. Nowhere in the complaint it is stated that the complainant is paying any consideration to opposite parties 2 & 3. That being the case he is not a consumer vis- a-vis them. May be the acts of the opposite parties 2 & 3 are not proper but that does not mean that the District Forum ''can pass an award only because of that when even according to it the complainant is not a consumer. When during the arguments before us we questioned the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant in both the appeals as to what was the consideration the complainant has paid to the opposite parties, his only answer was that he was paying water tax. Tax is not a consideration within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. Tax is a compulsory levy that has to be paid. Rightly, therefore, the District Forum has held that the complainant is not a consumer vis-a-vis the first opposite party. In these circumstances the order of award passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained. Therefore, no question of payment of enhanced compensation arises. In the result, therefore A.P. 1000/995 is allowed; the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. The other A.P. 1178/95 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in both the appeals. A.P. 1000/95 allowed & 1178/95 dismissed.