NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD, BULANDSHAHR vs MAN MOHAN LAL SAXENA

THIS is an appeal against order and judgment dated 9.9.1998 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bulandshahr in Complaint Case No. 299 of 1996.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the opposite party has provided a water connection to house No. 273, Mohalla Etta Rodi, Bulandshahr but since 30th April, 1996 the water supply has become zero. THE complainant is facing hardship on account of acute shortage of water. He has employed a person on payment of Rs. 60/- per day for bringing water. Opposite party has alleged that the water pressure in the house of the complainant is at normal pressure. There is a roster and water is supplied between 4-6 a.m. and 6-9 p.m. continuously. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. It has also been alleged that the complainant has also installed Tullu pump in violation of the rules. In this connection notices have been issued to the complainant. After considering the evidence on record, the learned District Forum has come to the conclusion that the water is essential for life and it is the moral and legal duty of the opposite party to supply water. With this finding the complaint was allowed and direction was issued to supply water to the complainant''s premises and to remove all the Tullu pumps installed in the area and also to pay damages of Rs. 2,000/-. It was further provided that if the damages are not paid, then the interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 10.10.1998 shall also be payable.

Aggrieved against this order, the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the judgment and order dated 9.9.1998.

WE have heard the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant and the opposite party who was present in person. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, no water charges are paid by the complainant and it is the statutory duty of the appellant to supply water to the complainant. On these facts, he has argued that the complainant is not a consumer and this case is not triable by the Consumer Forum. According to the respondent, he is paying tax for which he has filed the suit and as such he becomes a consumer and the appellant is liable to supply water to him at a pressure which may deliver water in his house on the upper floor. From the scrutiny of the evidence filed by the party, we find that the complainant has not filed any receipt to show that he is paying water tax. If the complainant is paying water tax, then he cannot claim to be a consumer because a statutory body who is ealizing the tax is not under an obligation or legally bound to provide services against the tax paid. If a licence fee is taken or charges have been paid then the appellant would have been under a legal obligation to supply water. The opposite party supplies water free of cost under a statutory law and opposite party cannot be directed to supply water to the complainant under certain pressure. In the case of Mayor, Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Tarapada Chatterjee & Ors., I (1994) CPJ 99 (NC), it was held that the construction and maintenance of water works and providing means for water supply is a statutory function of Municipal Corporation. Payment of property or water tax cannot constitute payment of "consideration" for hiring or availing of a service of the Municipal Board. In such cases the person getting the water supply is not a consumer. Same view was taken by this Commission in the case of Dinanath Arora v. Govind Prasad Agrawal & Ors., II (1996) CPJ 89.

AS far as Tullu pump are concerned, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, they are illegal and its connection cannot be permitted. It is between the complainant and the appellant to see whether a Tullu pump can be installed under the rules and if so what condition shall be imposable for installation of a Tullu pump. Thus in this way we can safely say that the complainant is not a consumer and he has no right to file the complaint before the learned District Forum. The District Forum could not have entertained and decided this complaint as it has no jurisdiction to do so. Thus we come to the conclusion that the appeal is liable to be allowed for the reasons given above. ORDER The appeal is allowed and the order and judgment of the learned District Forum, Bulandshahr dated 9.9.1998 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. Let copy be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal allowed.