JUDGMENT JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL) The complainant company was a tenant in House No.C-21, Friends Colony, Mathura Road, New Delhi owned by Mr. T.S. Sawhney and Mr.N.P. Singh. Mr. T.S. Sawhney and Mr. N.P. Singh requested the Assessor and Collector, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to mutate the said property in their name but the said mutation was not carried out and a notice under Section 154(1) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was served upon Indian Bank, New Delhi requiring the said bank to attach the bank account of the complainant, in which there was a credit balance of about Rs.6 lakh at that time. The case of the complainant is that vide its order dated 11.04.1996, passed in Civil Writ Petition No.1078/1995 ‘Trilok Singh Sawhney & Anr. Vs The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.’, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had directed the attachment of the bank account to continue for a further period of two weeks from the date of mutation whereafter, the consequences contemplated by Section 153 and 154 of the DMC Act, 1957 were to follow. The order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, inter alia, reads as under: “Without entering into the controversy whether the bill under Section 153 of the Act was received by the petitioners or not, we deem it proper in the interest of justice to direct the respondent to serve a fresh bill on the petitioner and then resort to Section 154 of the Act, if necessary. This proposition is also not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent in the interest of expeditious disposal of the petition and recovery of the revenue to the respondent. However, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that respondent would not be justified in issuing bill and demand to the petitioner without affecting the mutation over the property which has been pending since long. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there should be no hitch in accepting the mutation as they have cleared all the arrears of tax. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of in terms of the following directions: i) It is conceded that the authority competent to order mutation is the Assessor & Collector, House Tax Department, opp. Old Delhi Railway Station, Delhi. The petitioners are directed to appear before the above said authority on 7th May 1996 at 2.00 pm or such other date and time as may be appointed by the respondent No.1. The authority shall hear the petitioners. The petitioners shall make available all such documents and information as may be required by the above said authority for its perusal. ii) Copy of the bill under Section 153 of the DMC Act, 1957 has been delivered to the petitioners in the court today. On mutation being affected, the petitioners may either honour the bill or seek against it such remedy as may be available under the law. Else the respondents would be at liberty to take recourse to section 154 of the Act if the demand remains unsatisfied. iii) The petitioner’s bank account No.50238 with the Indian Bank, Connaught Circus, New Delhi is under attachment for an amount of Rs.3,50,160/- pursuant to the notice dated 26.2.95 and 19.1.96 of the respondent-MCD. The attachment shall continue for a period of two weeks from the date of mutation. Whereafter, the consequences contemplated by section 153 and 154 shall follow. 2. It would thus be seen that the Hon'ble High Court had directed the MCD to serve a fresh notice upon Mr. T.S. Sawhney and Mr.Narinder Pal Singh and also directed that on mutation being effected in the name of Mr. T.S. Sawhney and Mr. Narinder Pal Singh, they might either pay the bills served upon them by the Corporation or they might seek such remedy as was available to them under the law failing which the Corporation would be at liberty to take recourse to Section 154 of the DMC Act, 1957 if the demand raised by it remained unsatisfied. The bank account of the complainant with Indian Bank was to remain attached for two weeks from the mutation, whereafter the consequence contemplated by Section 153 and 154 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act were to follow. 3. The case of the complainant is that though the demand notice issued under Section 154 and the attachment order issued by the Corporation were no more valid, the bank account of the complainant had not being released and the sum of Rs. 3,50,160/- had not been paid to the complainant. 4. The State Commission, while holding that there was no deficiency in the Indian Bank is not releasing the amount, the said bank being bound to release the amount only on the directions of MCD held that if at all there was any deficiency in service, it was on the part of MCD. The consumer complaint, therefore, was disposed of with the following directions: “(i) OP No.1 shall release the payment of Rs. 3,50,160/- to the complainant forthwith in view of the order of the High Court dated 11-04-1996. (ii) OP No.2 shall pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for not issuing direction to OP No.1 in terms of the order of the High Court and thereby the complainant had suffered mental agony, harassment and financial loss.” 5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission the Complainant is before this Commission by way of First Appeal No.671/2007 whereas, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is before this Commission by way of First Appeal No.463/2008. 6. No one has been appearing for the South Delhi Municipal Corporation in this matter despite the notice having been served upon the said Corporation. Vide order dated 29.01.2020, this Commission noted that the Chief Legal Advisor of the South Delhi Municipal Corporation was present on 27.04.2016 and therefore, the Corporation ought to have put its appearance. Thereafter a fresh notice was issued to the Corporation and has been served upon it on 24.02.2020, but despite that there is no appearance on behalf of the Corporation. 7. Admittedly, the directions given by the State Commission to Indian Bank stand complied. The First Appeal No.671/2007 therefore, is directed against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 8. It is an admitted position that the bank account of the complainant was attached by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in order to recover the arrears of Property Tax against House No.C-21, Friends Colony, Mathura Road, New Delhi. While issuing the demand notice and attaching the bank account of the complainant the Assessor and Collector of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was acting in exercise of the statutory power conferred upon the Corporation under the DMC Act, 1957. The levy, assessment and recovery of the property tax being a statutory function of the Corporation it cannot be said that the Corporation was rendering any service to the complainant or even to the owner of the property in which the complainant was a tenant, while seeking to recover property tax by attaching the bank account of the complainant with Indian Bank. 9. In terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a person is a ‘Consumer’ if he either purchases goods or higher or avail services for a consideration. The terms service has been defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A statutory function performed by a statutory Corporation is not envisaged to be a service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the property tax collected by the Corporation may be used by it for the purpose of providing various services to the citizens, the corporation is not rendering any services while levying and collecting property tax and the said levy and collection is not linked to the services which the Corporation is providing to the citizens. 10. In ‘Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha’ [IV (2009) CPJ 34 (SC)] dated 04.09.2009, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held as under: “But the Act does not intended to cover discharge of a statutory function of examining whether a candidate is fit to be declared as having successfully completed a course by passing the examination. The fact that in the course of conduct of the examination, or evaluation of answer-scripts, or furnishing of mark-sheets or certificates, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer who can make a complaint under the Act.” 11. The complainant, therefore, cannot be said to be a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, First Appeal No.671/2007 filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed and First Appeal No.463/2008 filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is liable to be allowed. The impugned order is therefore, set-aside and the consumer complaint is dismissed with no orders as cost. It is however, made clear that the dismissal of the consumer complaint shall not come to the way of the complainant approaching a Civil Court, filing a Writ Petition or availing such remedy other than a consumer complaint as may be open to it in law against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The appeals stand disposed of. | 
