PRESIDENT, PANCHAYAT BOARD, ILANCHI vs ARUNACHALAM

COUNSEL for the respondents absent. COUNSEL for the appellant present. Heard the COUNSEL for the appellant. Since the matter lies in a narrow compass, it is needless to state elaborately the facts leading to the filing of the complaint.

THE sum and substance of the complaint is thus: THE appellant/opposite party which is a Panchayat Board, has committed deficiency in service by not supplying sufficient water to the complainant. THE Panchayat Board collects water tax. THEy must be deemed to be doing service and inasmuch as there is deficiency in service, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act are attracted. This contention of the complainants was accepted by the Lower Forum, which accordingly allowed the complaint and directed the Panchayat Board to provide adequate water supply to the complainants. It is not necessary to cite a gamut of rulings on this point. Suffice it is to refer to the decision rendered by the National Commission in the case of The Mayor, Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Tarapada Chatterjee and Others, I (1994) CPJ 99 (NC). Following the earlier decision reported in II (1994) CPJ 51, the National Commission has observed that the construction and maintenance of water-works and providing means for water supply is a statutory duty of the Corporation for the public as one of the obligatory statutory functions of the Corporation and in discharge of such duties, the Corporation is maintaining the system of water supply and, therefore, availing of water supply from the Corporation on payment of tax does not mean that there is hiring of service and, therefore, it is not a dispute that would fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. This decision has been followed by the Madhya Pradesh State Commission and the decision was reported in II (2000) CPJ 558 and by other Courts as well.

The above decision would squarely apply to the facts of this case. Further, as a question of fact, supply of water depends upon the availability of water as well as the areas of supply, the level of the terrain and the needs of the people in any particular locality. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Panchayat Board cannot be held to have rendered any service on hire to the complainant and, therefore, there does not arise any deficiency in service as contemplated under the Act. Hence, in this view of the matter, we have no hesitation in upsetting the verdict of the lower Forum. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order of the lower Forum is hereby set aside. In these circumstances, there is no order as to costs. However, as the appellants/opposite parties agree that they would take steps to supply water to the complainants/respondents, if there is improvement in the water storage position and if objections are not raised by the persons living in the lower terrain of the area to the supply of water to the complainants/respondents who are living in an elevated area through the valves already installed therein, it is so recorded. Appeal allowed.