MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE OF NARWANA vs Munshi Ram

WHETHER the respondent is a consumer vis-a-vis the Municipal Committee, Narwana is the solitary core question in this appeal?

THE somewhat curious case set up by the respondent was that the employees of the Municipal Committee had dug a pit in close vicinity to the mud house of the respondent for taking earth for constructing a road nearby. THE suggestion was that during the rainy season, the water had accumulated in that pit and this ultimately seeped in and damaged the wall of the complainant, resulting in its ultimate falling down. THE rather emotional plea was that the respondent was a handicapped person having lost an arm, and was so poor that he could hardly make his both ends meet. It was the plea that he had been ruined by the damage to the wall and consequently, compensation was sought against the Municipal Committee. The appellants firmly contested the complaint and took up the patent that the complainant was not at all a consumer qua the appellant and the case was not maintainable. On merits also the allegations were categorically denied and the stand was that the complainant had himself dug the earth for constructing the mud wall, which had fallen down due to heavy rains in the monsoon.

Even though, the case was contested at every stage, the respondent rested himself content by putting in his own self-serving affidavit in support of his case, claiming loss of Rs. 6,000/-.

THE District Forum apparently moved by reasons of charity or compassion skirted the crucial threshold issue of whether the respondent came within the ambit of the definition of a consumer at all. Bye-passing the same, it held that the complainant''s affidavit proved that the wall of the house had fallen due to a deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and forthwith proceeded to award Rs. 4,000/- as damages. Mr. Rajnish Narula, learned Counsel for the appellant had rightly and forcefully assailed the order under appeal. It was pointed out that in the reply the threshold objection of the respondent being not a consumer was firmly taken and pressed, but the District Forum conveniently chose not to adjudicate upon the same. It was submitted that the respondent being not a consumer was writ large and manifest on the record and a finding to the contrary and the strained observations of deficiency in some assumed services were totally unwarranted.

ON the other hand Munshi Ram who had put in appearance in person was an illiterate, indigent and a handicapped person (having lost an arm) and was inevitably totally wide of the mark as regards the niceties of the definition of a consumer under the Act and as to how he would come within the ambit thereof. Even when repeatedly pin-pointed and given solicitous opportunity to show how he could possibly bring his complaint within the consumer jurisdiction he had nothing more to add apart from plea of mercy. Whilst we have deepest compassion for the respondent his case appears to be a classic example of the adage that hard cases mere bad law. It would appear that the District Forum moved more by considerations of emotion rather than those of logic and law granted relief contrary to the plain statutory provisions. There is obvious merit in the stand taken on behalf of the appellant-Municipal Committee. Mr. Narula was right in his submission that even taking the complaint at its face value it did not even allege as to how the complainant had hired any service of the Municipal Committee or paid any consideration therefore, far from establishing the same. On the face of it a mere allegation of a tortuous Act against the employees of the appellant-Municipal Committee would not even remotely make the case a consumer lis. From whichever angle the matter may be looked at, we are unable to see how the respondent would become a consumer and further that there was any deficiency in any conjectural service hired by him for consideration. It bears repetition that the respondent-complainant had not even alleged that he had paid express consideration or indirectly by way of paying any municipal tax either. However, even taking his case at the highest that he may as a resident in the municipal area be paying some marginal tax, 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 First Appeal No. 2 of 1992, Municipal Committee, Rewari v. Brij Mohan Aggarwal, decided on the 9th of April, 1992. Therein after an exhaustive discussion on principle, a similar order of the District Forum had to be set aside and it was concluded as follows : - "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."

The aforesaid ratio then came up for consideration in a similar matter in First Appeal Nos. 186 and 188 of 1993, Municipal Committee, Gurgaon v. Harish Kumar and Another, decided on the 15th of June, 1993 (1993 Consumer Law Today 326). Reiterating the earlier view this Commission allowed the appeal of the Municipal Committee, Gurgaon in the said case and dismissed the complaint on the threshold ground.

IT would be somewhat manifest that this Commission has taken a consistent view that any tortuous act or the mere payment of municipal tax would not make the residents of the Municipal Committee a consumer qua the same. In S.D.O. A.E.E. City Division, Hissar v. M/s. Hotel Palki, Hissar, I (1992) CPJ 127 this Commission has firmly taken the view that it is bound by its own decisions on a point of law. Agreeing both on principle as also on the theory of precedent we must inevitably hold that the respondent would not by an stretch of imagination come within the ambit of consumer vis-a-vis Municipal Committee.

FOR the fore-going reasons this appeal must succeed and we are constrained to set aside the order of the District FORum and dismiss the complaint preferred by the respondent. Nevertheless we decline to burden the respondent primarily because of his consumer status and indigence. Appeal allowed.