SPECIAL OFFICER, SASARAM MUNICIPALITY vs Sarju Prasad

THIS appeal has been heard ex parte preferred by O.P. (Special Officer, Sasaram Municipality) against the order dated 14.12.1995 whereby and whereunder the appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.

THE brief fact of the case is that he has a Sattu shop but the road in front of his shop is not being cleaned by the Municipality regularly which is filled up with mud, dirty water and nuisance has been created in the locality which has resulted into loss of his business as the customers do not approach his shop. THE Nala in front of his shop has not been cleaned since long in spite of several requests to the authorities. On the basis of the allegation complainant filed the case and claimed compensation from the appellant.

The appellant (Municipality) appeared and filed written statement stating therein that the allegation of the complainant is false and fabricated. There was no deficiency in the service of the Municipality. The Nala in the locality is cleaned regularly as per availability of the strength of the Municipal staff. The complainant has not paid the trade licence fee of his shop to the Municipality in spite of repeated demand and to avoid the payment he has filed this case with false allegation. The learned appellant''s lawyer further argued that Hon''ble National Commission in his judgment reported in 1997 (2) CPR page 179, M/s. Signet Corporation v. Commissioner, MCD, New Delhi, held that no consumer complaint can be maintained against Municipal Corporation on the ground of its alleged failure to discharge its statutory duty of proper maintenance of public drain, sewerage system, etc. in that case also a sewerage system used by the complainant and the allegation was that it was not regularly cleaned and it has caused serious health hazards to the complainant and his family. The National Commission held that such complaints are beyond the scope of the Consumer Forum and complainant is not a consumer. The National Commission held that in several decisions of the National Commission as well as by the Hon''ble Supreme Court it has been held that payment of a tax which is levied in the exercise of the sovereign function of the State cannot constitute consideration even remotely for any service rendered or likely to be rendered by the Municipal authority. There is no case of hiring the services of the Corporation on payment and as such the resident within the Municipal Corporation is not a consumer nor such case is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

IN the light of the above judgment and settled principle we are of the view that complaint petition was not maintainable before the District Forum which should have been dismissed in limine. Therefore, the order passed thereunder by the District Forum is void and fit to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.