Municipal Council vs Sant Ram

THIS is an appeal received by transfer from Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 12. 12. 2003 in complaint case No. 498 of 2003, Sant Ram v. Municipal Council, Ferozepur and Another.

BRIEFLY stated the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has a municipal water tap, which was not giving proper water supply and on the advice of the OP, he installed Horse Power electric motor to improve the water supply for which the Complainant deposited the necessary fee with the OP and also spent substanial amount for installation of this motor in 1992-1993. However, even after the installation of the motor, supply of water did not improve and hence, through this complaint, the Complainant has prayed for a direction to the OP to provide water supply to his house and has also sought a compensation of Rs. 5,000 for mental agony and physical harassment. The version of OP No. 1 is that water charges, surcharge, meter charge and water cess amounting to Rs. 2,941 is outstanding agains the Complainant w. e. f. 1. 4. 2001 to 30. 9. 2003 i. e. the time at which the complaint was instituted. It is further the case of OP that maintenance of the water supply is the duty of OP No. 2 i. e. SDO, Water Supply who is collecting water bills from the Complainant.

The learned District Forum to get the proper status of water supply being provided to the Complainant, appointed Sh. T. S. Kamboj, Advocate as Local Commissioner who after his checking, gave a checking report stating that water supply of the Complainant''s house is not adequate. In view of the report of Local Commissioner, the learned District Forum held that there was no need for any further investigation into the matter and accepting the complaint, it directed the OPs to arrange adequate water supply to the house of the Complainant and also directed them to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs. 2,000 as compensation for mental harassment along with another Rs. 500 quantified as costs of litigation. The order was directed to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.

AGGRIEVED by the said order of the learned District Forum, OP No. 1 had been filed the present appeal before the Punjab State Commission and the same has now been transferred to this Commission under the orders of Hon''ble National Commission. Sh. Sandeep Khungar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Appellant/op No. 1 whereas none appeared on behalf of the Respondents despite sufficient service and they were proceeded against ex parte. The first submission of Sh. Sandeep Khungar, learned Counsel for the Appellant was that the Municipal Council, Ferozepur performs statutory functions and it is not covered under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and to support his contention, he cited the judgment of Hon''ble National Commission in the case of The Mayor, Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Tarapada Chatterjee and Others, I (1994) CPJ 99 (NC)=1994 (1) CPC 280, wherein it has been held that Municipal Committees while performing their statutory function such as maintenance of water works after receipt of taxes from the locals do not come under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. His next submission was that the Local Commissioner appointed by the learned District Forum went to the house of the Complainant in afternoon when the flow of water all over the area is low and the learned District Forum failed to get the check done at the time when the flow was proper. The next limb of his arguments was that the Complainant had not paid his bills properly and he was in arrears of payment of water bills amounting to Rs. 2,941 at the time of instituting the complaint as it had been clearly indicated in the order also that he had not paid water bills from 1. 4. 2001 onwards. Thus emphatically submitting that the complaint was not maintainable qua the Municipal Council, the learned Counsel prayed that even on merit, the Complainant has no case and, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the complaint be dismissed.

WE have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The first issue before us is whether the complaint is maintainable against the Municipal Council or not? In this context, the order of Hon''ble National Commission in the case of the Mayor, Calcutta Municipal Corporation (supra) has been cited. That judgment pertains to performance of Municipal Corporation of its statutory functions for which taxes are paid by the locals and since taxes cannot be constituted to mean consideration money for performance of service, such statutory functions of the Municipal Corporation have been kept out of the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, in the present case, the Municipal Council in addition to its statutory functions is also involved in provision of water supply to the residents for which it is charging the bills for the water consumed. Such service for which the residents are paying proper bills to the extent of utilization of the service is duly covered under the C. P. Act and, therefore, it cannot be sid that all activities of the Municipal Council per se are out of the ambit of C. P. Act. We, therefore, do not agree with this contention of the Appellant that the complaint is not maintenable qua the Municipal Council. Now coming to the issue proper of inadequate water supply to the Complainant''s premises, the report of Local Commissioner has not been denied by the Appellant. However, it has been stated that the Local Commissioner''s report should not have been relied upon by the learned District Forum because he visited the spot at the time when normal pressure in the locality is low. We are of the view that if such was the case, it was for the Appellant to inform the learned District Forum and the Local Commissioner of such problem and it should have been informed to the Local Commissioner to visit at a time when, as per the Appellant, the flow of water was proper. Since this had not been done and there was no objection raised by the Appellant to the time of visit of the Local Commissioner at the time of checking by him, it cannot now lie in the mouth of the Appellant to say that the report of Local Commissioner cannot be relied upon as the pressure is generally low in the area when the Local Commissioner visited the spot but it is otherwise proper. We are of the clear view that the learned District Forum has correctly gone by the report of the Local Commissioner and, therefore, the order does not suffer from any legal infirmity in this regard. Furthermore, considering the plea of the Appellant that no relief should have been granted to the Complainant because he has not paid water bills w. e. f. 1. 4. 2001, we do not subscribe to this view because if the Complainant had not paid the dues, then it is entirely a different issue and the Appellant has full powers to realise the arrears from the Complainant as per rules and regulations framed by the Municipal Council for the same.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is dismissed as it lacks merit and the impugned order is upheld.

COPIES of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.