SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER I.B. vs KIRPAL SINGH

VIDE this order, two Appeal Nos. 42 and 43 of 1998 are being disposed of. Though District Forum, Mansa disposed of two complaints filed by different persons separately, however, the facts involved are the same.

IN Complaint No. 507, Kirpal Singh and 24 other residents of Village Nangal Khurd, Tehsil and District Mansa are the complainants whereas in Complaint No. 506 of 1997, Sukhdev Singh and 13 others are the complainants, residents of Village Nangal Khurd, Tehsil and District Mansa. The grouse of the complainants was common that on account of breach in the Canal their fields were flooded with water damaging their crops hence they claimed compensation giving details of their land and the nature of the crops sown and estimates of the loss suffered. The complaints were filed against the State of Punjab, X.E.N., Irrigation Department and S.D.O. (I.B.), Canal Rest House, Mansa. The opposite parties contested the complaints, inter alia, asserting that the complainants were not consumers. On merits, the extent of damage suffered was disputed. Their negligence in causing damage was also disputed. It was stated to be an act of God. On evidence produced by parties, the impugned orders were passed allowing the complaints and granting different amounts of compensation to the complainants. IN Complaint No. 507, total amount payable to the Complainants was stated to be Rs. 2,70,000/-. IN the other complaint, also a total amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- was held to be payable to the complainants proportionately, hence, these two appeals. The short question involved in these appeals is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainants can be treated as consumers as defined entitled to file complaints for compensation under the Consumer Protection Act. Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act defines ''consumer'' as under : "consumer" means any person who- (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) {hires or avails of} any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary or such services other than the person who {hires or avails of} the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person."

The present is not a case of sale of goods or finding defect therein. The only question is whether the case is covered under Clause (ii) referred to above and that depends upon a finding to be recorded as to whether complainants had hired the services of the opposite parties for consideration for securing water for irrigation of their fields. At this stage, reference be made to notification dated February 14, 1997 issued by the State of Punjab exempting the payment of any irrigation charges. The contention of the Counsel for the appellants is that since the breach occurred in the Canal in April, 1997 i.e. after enforcement of the notification referred to above, there was no question of hiring services of the opposite parties for consideration. Rebutting the argument aforesaid, it has been argued by the Counsel for the complainants that in fact the crop was sown sometime in October or November and it was to ripe in April, 1997. The complainants had paid irrigation charges for the relevant crop and hence they were consumers. In our considered view, the complainants cannot be treated as consumers. As to whether they had paid irrigation charges prior to the notification referred to above would be immaterial as referred to above. The fields of the complainants were flooded with water on account of breach of Canal. It is not a case of deficiency in rendering service in not providing irrigation facility from the outlet. Otherwise, there is no contract of hiring services with the opposite parties in the matter of maintenance of the canal. Similar matters relating to electricity supply and sewerage system came before the Commission wherein it has been held that by merely making payment of the taxes, the citizens do not become consumers with respect to statutory duties to be performed by the State Authorities in the matter of laying out the sewerage pipes or laying out the main line and of electricity main line. Reference be made in this regard to the decision of National Commission in M/s. Signet Corporation v. Commissioner, M.C.D., New Delhi & Ors., III (1997) CPJ 6 (NC)=1997 (2) CPC 408 (NC), and decision of this Commission in Superintendent Engineer & Anr. v. Darshan Singh, III (1997) CPJ 7=1997 (2) CPC 645. Likewise in the present case, there is no contract of hiring services of the opposite parties in the matter of maintenance of the Canals, and if any breach occurred in the Canal for whatsoever reason, the complainants cannot be treated as consumers. In other words, it cannot be held that the opposite parties were deficient in the matter of rendering service. That being the position, the impugned orders passed in these cases cannot be sustained in law. For the reasons recorded above, these appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The complainants are left to seek their remedy in the Civil Court according to law. Appeal allowed.