SHIMOGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SRI ARUN

THIS appeal by the opposite party is directed against the order dated 28.6.93 passed by the District Forum, Shimoga in Complaint No. DE(S) 113/92, directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000/-.

THE facts, briefly stated, are as follows : THE complainant averred that opposite party Shimoga Urban Development Authority, formed a layout known as Devarajurs Layout and allotted site to several persons including the complainant. THE opposite party though allotted the sites therein the allottees constructed the houses thereon but the opposite party did not provide basic amenities like electricity, watersupply, road etc. The complainant on the basis of these averments sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 66,751/- the expenses incurred by him and others and also for the sufferings undergone by them.

The opposite party filed its version and averred that it had taken up the developmental activities in the area i.e. providing water, electricity facilities etc. to the residents of the area. It further averred that it had not committed any deficiency in service and had taken all the steps that were necessary to be taken for providing the basic need of the residents of the area.

DURING enquiry the parties filed their affidavits in evidence. We have called for the records and received. We have perused the pleadings of the parties and the material placed on record.

THE National Commission while considering such an aspect of the matter in THE Mayor, Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Tarapada Chatterjee & Ors. reported in I (1994) CPJ 99 (NC) held as under : "After hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case it has become clear that the complainant is paying only "property tax" to the Corporation, the levy of which is based on the annual value determined as per the provisions of Section 174 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. THE construction and maintenance of the water works and providing means for supply of water for public and private purposes is specified in Section 29 of the said Act as one of the obligatory statutory functions of the Corporation and it is only in the discharge of the said statutory duty that the Corporation is maintaining the system of water supply to the residents within the Municipal limits. THE complainant is getting the water supply to his premises only by virtue of the performance of the statutory duty by the Corporation. In the order dated December 15, 1989, passed by this Commission in Consumer Unity and Trust Society v. THE State of Rajasthan & Ors. (F.A. No. 2 of 1989)- II (1991) CPJ 56=1991 (1) CPR 241, the question whether the payment of a tax can constitute payment of ''consideration'' for the ''hiring'' or ''availing'' services "for consideration" has been discussed in detail and after referring to the rulings given on the point by the Supreme Court of India it was held that payment of tax to Government which goes into the consolidated fund of the Union of India or State cannot constitute a payment of "consideration" for the "hiring" or "availing of" a service. In the light of the principles laid down in the said decision it is manifest that the contrary conclusion recorded by the State Commission and the District Forum is incorrect and they have acted illegally and without jurisdiction in holding that the dispute raised by the complainant about the inadequacy of pressure in the water supply system is a "consumer dispute" that can be adjudicated upon under the Act."

It is clear from this principle as laid down by the National Commission that the grievances averred and the dispute raised by the complainant cannot be classified as a ''consumer dispute'' and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The District Forum did not consider this material aspect of the matter and therefore the inding recorded by the District Forum is clearly erroneous and unsustainable.

IN the result, therefore, this appeal is allowed. The order passed by the District Forum in Complaint No. DF (S) 113/92 on 28.6.93 is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

THE parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.