BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 127 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 24.04.2015.
Date of Order: 07.03.2019.
Pehlad Singh son of Shri Jai Lal, resident of village Bohal, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani.
…..Complainant.
Versus
1. Shri Ashvir Nain, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani.
2. Vikash, Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Bohal, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani.
3. Shakuntla, Sarpanch village Gram Panchayat, Bohal, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Shri Hariom Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Sanjay Sheoran, Advocate for the OPs No. 2 & 3.
OP No. 1 already exparte.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the case are that complainant is paying the Chula Tax every year to the OP No. 3 and he deposited the Chula Tax for the years 2013-14 vide receipt No.215/55 dated 1.4.2013 Rs.30/- and for the years 2014-15 vide receipt No.215/74 dated 1.4.2014 Rs. 30/-. It is further alleged that the complainant is a social worker and he has moved RTI application to OP No. 3 on 24.9.2014 for seeking the information about the development work of village and due to which the OP No. 3 having grudge with the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant has deposited the Chula Tax through his nephew on 8.4.2015 with the OP No. 3 and a receipt dated 9.4.2015 has been issued and written the year 2014-2015 instead of year 2015-2016, because the complainant has already deposited the Chula Tax for 2014-2015. It is further alleged that the OP No. 3 has refused to correct the receipt. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, the present complaint.
2. On notice, no one appeared on behalf of the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 1 was proceeded as exparte vide order dated 10.7.2015. Lateron OP No.1 has filed the joint written statement without setting aside exparte order, thus, the written statement on behalf of the OP No. 1 cannot be read.
3. OP No. 2 & 3 appeared and filed the contested written statement denying the allegations of the complainant. It is alleged that complainant is not consumer qua answering OPs, as the allegations leveled by him in this complaint does not falls within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further alleged that the complainant has not come in the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and suppressed the true & material facts from the Hon’ble Forum, the real facts are that he has deposited Rs. 30/- on 9.4.2015 as house tax (Chula Tax), but due to clerical mistake the year 2014-15 was written on the receipt instead of the year 2015-2016. It is further alleged that the complainant has never approached the answering OPs for the correction of year on the receipt and this fact has comes to the knowledge of the OPs only after receipt of summons from this Hon’ble Forum. It is further alleged that the complainant use to move the false applications for making pressure and for getting financial benefit from the people and he admitted this fact in Para No. 3 of complaint itself. It is further alleged that the complaint in hand is clear cut mis-use of the Provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the same has been filed just to waste the valuable and precious time of the Hon’ble Consumer Forum, because the OPs were always ready to correct the clerical mistake in the receipt, but the complainant is not interesting for correction in the receipt and this fact is also clear from the prayer made by him in his complaint, where he has not requested for correction of the year in the receipt of house tax. It is further alleged that the OPs have never asked the complainant to deposit the house tax next day due to non-availability of receipt book. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs and prayed for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. The complainant to prove his case placed on record the documents Annexure C1 to C3 and closed the evidence.
5. Ld. Counsel for the OPs No. 2 & 3 has failed in producing any evidence on record, despite availing several opportunities including many last opportunities and the evidence of the OPs No.2 & 3 has been closed by the court vide order dated 22.2.2019.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties at length and gone through the case file very carefully.
7. The main plea taken by the OPs is that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in view of the Section 2(i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because he is not consumer qua OPs. In our view, the plea taken by the OPs has substance because the only plea taken by the complainant is that the OPs have charged Chula Tax from him twice. The complainant does not buy any goods from the OPs and he also does not hires or avail any service of the OPs. Thus, the complainant has failed to show that as to how he becomes consumer qua OPs, because the dispute regarding the payment of Chula Tax does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. So, the complainant is not consumer qua OPs, in view of the Section 2 (i) (d) of the C. P. Act, 1986, which is reproduced as under:-
(d) “consumer” means any person who-
(i) buys any good 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 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} 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 of such services other than 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 payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of first mentioned person{ but not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose} .
So the complainant is not consumer qua OPs.
8. On merits also, the complainant has failed to prove that the OPs have charges the Chula Tax twice from him for the year 2014-15, because has failed on producing the second receipt of payment of Chula Tax for the year 2014-2015. The complainant has pleaded in his complaint that he has deposited the Chula Tax vide receipt No.215/55 dated 1.4.2013 and vide receipt No.215/74 dated 1.4.2014, but he has only placed on record receipt No.215/55 dated 1.4.2013 as Annexure C1 and he has failed to place on record the second receipt No.215/74 dated 1.4.2014. Mere mentioning in the pleadings that he deposited the Chula Tax for two times vide receipt No.215/55 dated 1.4.2013 and vide receipt No.215/74 dated 1.4.2014 is not sufficient, rather he has to prove this fact by leading some cogent and convincing documentary evidence, but he failed to do so.
9. Therefore, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, the complainant has miserably failed to prove himself a consumer and he also failed to prove that he has deposited the Chula Tax for two times vide receipt No.215/55 dated 1.4.2013 and No.215/74 dated 1.4.2014, because he has not placed on record the second receipt No. 215/74 dated 1.4.2014. So, there is no deficiency and negligence on the part of OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: - 07.03.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
