Municipal Committee vs Harish Kumar

FIRST Appeal Nos. 186 of 1993 and 188 of 1993 are cross appeals which stand concluded by our earlier exhaustive order in Appeal No. 2 of 1992 Municipal Committee, Rewari v. Brij Mohan Aggarwal, decided on April 9,1992. This order will govern both of them.

THE facts may be noticed with relative brevity from First Appeal No. 186 of 1993 Municipal Committee, Gurgaon v. Harish Kumar. THE complainant-respondent is a resident of 62, Sessions House, Civil Lines, Gurgaon. It was his case that on 3-11-1992, the sewer man-hole on the road situated in Mohalla Shivaji Nagar was lying open and the road near it was in grave disrepair. At about 9.15 p.m. on that night, the respondent happened to pass on that road on a scooter and due to darkness and in the absence of any signal at that place, he fell down in the ditch of the manhole and therefore, received multiple serious injuries. It was alleged that the respondent paid road-tax and even otherwise, the Municipal Committee was legally bound to repair and maintain the manhole and the roads and keep them motorable because it receives taxes and grants from the Government for the said purpose. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for injuries and for added sums on other accounts was claimed as relief. The appellant-Municipal Committee, Gurgaon in defending the complaint strenuously took-up the primal jurisdictional plea that the complainant-respondent did not fall within the definition of a consumer and consequently the complaint was not maintainable at the very threshold. The factual allegations of the respondents were also controverted.

The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The District Forum noticed that the primal plea on behalf of the Municipal Committee was that the complaint was not maintainable for the reasons noticed above. However, it took the somewhat dogmatic view that a tax payer is certainly a consumer and the Municipal Committee received taxes and grants in aid for maintenance of roads, streets and sewerage system, and it is duty bound to see that this is so done and consequently answerable within the consumer jurisdiction. In the result, relief was granted to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-.

MR. Praduman Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant-Municipal Committee without citing any precedent had primarily argued onprinciple and the definition of a consumer under the Act that the respondent did not come within its ambit. It was urged that there was not a title of evidence that the respondent even otherwise had paid any taxes to the Municipality as such and therefore, no question of hiring any service or payment of any consideration would arise. On the other hand MR. Sanjiv Pabbi, learned Counsel for the respondent had altruistically submitted that the Municipal Committee has a duty to maintain civic amenities and were ipso-facto answerable to everyone within the consumer jurisdiction. Reliance was sought to be placed by him on I (1992) Consumer Protection Judgments, 248. There is patent merit in the stand on behalf of the appellant-Municipal Committee. What first meets the eye here is the fact that the barest allegation made on behalf of the complainant was that he paid road-tax apparently with reference to his scooter. That tax on the face of it is payable under the Motor Vehicles Act and not as consideration for any amenity to be maintained by the Municipal Committee nor is it even the case that the same was tendered to the latter. Even when pressed, Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi on behalf of the respondent virtually conceded his inability to show that the respondent had individually paid any Municipal tax in any form.

HOWEVER, altogether apart from the above, and taking the case at its highest that the complainant was a Municipal tax payer, the same would not in any way aid or advance his case. The issue arising herein had directly come up for consideration before this Commission in Appeal No. 2 of 1992 -Municipal Committee, Rewari v. Brij Mohan Aggarwal, decided on 19th April, 1992. Therein after an exhaustive discussion on principle, the order of the District Forum was set-aside and it was concluded as follows : "11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the answer to the question posed at the very out-set has to be rendered in the negative. It is held that a resident of a Municipal Committee paying taxes thereto is not a consumer within the meaning of the Act as regards the municipal services rendered by the committee."

In fairness, to, Mr. Pabbi we must advert to his reliance on Yamuna Vihar residents Welfare Association v. Chairman Delhi Dairy Authority (supra). A reading of the somewhat short order of the National Commission would make it plain that the same does not in any way aid or advance the case of the complainant. Therein, the National Commission had merely issued certain directions to the Delhi Development Authority and the Municipal Committee, Delhi on the prayer of the Yamuna Vihar Residents Welfare Association. One fails to seehow such a direction is in any way a warrant for the proposition that every tax payer is a consumer. It is mainfest that the afore-quoted ratio in para 7 concludes the matter in favour of the Municipal Committee, Gurgaon and consequently their appeal No. 186 of 1993 is hereby allowed and the order of the District Forum is set-aside and the complaint dismissed.

IN-evitably, the complainants First Appeal No. 188 of 1993 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded must fail and is dismissed. We will, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal No. 186 allowed Appeal No. 188 dismissed.