PREM LATA vs MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BATHINDA

FIRST Appeal Nos. 63 of 1994 and 65 of 1994 being cross appeals are directed against the same order of the District Forum, Bathinda. The learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that this order will govern both of them.

FOR the limited purpose of adjudicating on the preliminary jurisdictional objection raised by the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Chandigarh (opposite party-2 before the District FORum), it is unnecessary to delve deeply into the facts and merits. Suffice it to mention that on 14.7.1992 at about 8.00 p.m. whilst the complainant-appellant alongwith her husband was going from Ajit Road to her house, the sewerage was over-flowing and the road was muddy. It was alleged that at that time she slipped and fell down in the ditch of the manhole and received injuries in the back and other parts of the body. It was her case that despite her getting treatment from various Doctors at Bathinda and Ludhiana, she was still not fully cured and on account of her disability, she had to employ a servant at the rate of the rate of Rs. 1,000/- p.m. The complaint was therefore, filed by the complainant seeking to recover compensation of Rs. 1 lac from the opposite-parties on the plea that they were negligent in maintaining the sanitary system at Bathinda. On notices being issued, the Municipal Committee, Bathinda did not contest the complaint and was proceeded ex-parte. The Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Chandigarh (For short ''the Board'') however, stoutly contested the complaint and took the firm preliminary threshold objection that the complainant did not come within the definition of a ''consumer'' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ''the Act'') and the dispute raised was not a consumer dispute at all and the District Forum had consequently no jurisdiction. On merits, the factual allegations of the complainant were also controverted.

The parties led documentary evidence and also filed affidavits in support of their respective cases. The District Forum summarily concluded that from the material on the file, it was manifest that the complainant had undergone treatment and remained bed-ridden from 15-7-1992 to 12-6-1993 and in that process she had not only undergone the upset from the daily routine but also spent a lot and that it could not be denied that the manhole was not covered and more so it was in a bad shape. In the result, relief was granted to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- as compensation. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has now come up with this appeal praying for the enhancement of compensation and the opposite party-Board in its Appeal No. 65/1994 has challenged the correctness and legality of the impugned order.

MR. Atul Sethi, Advocate for the respondent-Board has pinned himself on the spear head contention that the complainant-appellant by no stretch of imagination could come within the ambit of ''consumer'' under the Act as the respondents had not rendered any service to her. On the other hand, MR. D.D. Bansal, the learned Counsel for the complainant-appellant has urged that the appellant has been paying house tax to the respondents and as such they are answerable within the consumer jurisdiction. He has further altruistically submitted that the Municipal Committee and the Board had a duty to maintain civic amenities and were ipso facto answerable to everyone within the consumer jurisdiction. However, altogether apart from the above and taking the case at its highest that the appellant was a house tax payer, the same would not in any way aid or advance her case The issue arising herein had directly come up for consideration before the National Commission in Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan, II (1991) CPJ 56=1991 (1) CPR 241. Therein after exhaustive discussion on principle, it was held that "the payment of taxes cannot be regarded as consideration for service rendered by the Government. The same principle applies to the taxes paid to the Municipal Committee. We, therefore, agree with the conclusion of the District Forum and hole that the complainant is not a consumer".

THE aforesaid ratio directly goes deeply in favour of the stand taken by the respondent - Board. However, what further concludes the matter is the fact that a virtually identical question came up for consideration before this Commission in Laxmi Narain Goyal v. Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Patiala and Others, 1993 CPC 737. THErein after exhaustive discussion, it was held that the payment of house tax to the Government cannot be construed as consideration for the service rendered by the Government. Within this jurisdiction, the aforesaid two cases would set the matter at rest in favour of the respondent-Board. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we uphold the said preliminary objection raised by the respondent-Board, holding that the complainant-appellant was not a ''consumer'' for the purpose of the Act and inevitably the complaint was not maintainable within the consumer jurisdiction. The Appeal No. 65/1994 filed by the respondent-Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Chandigarh is consequently allowed on the threshold ground and the First Appeal No. 63/1994 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded must fail and is dismissed. The complainant-appellant will however, beat liberty to make the claim in an appropriate Court of law, if so advised. In the circumstances, we will however, leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.