Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by the complainant against opposite parties i.e. Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Kapurthala, Inspector House Tax, Municipal Committee, Kapurthala and the Director, Local Bodies, Punjab Chandigarh seeking directions for the recovery of Rs.9720/- of house tax <br /> <br /> -2-<br /> alongwith monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 2. In nutshell, the facts in the complaint are that the complainant is resident of Kapurthala and he had received notice from Municipal Committee, Kapurthala vide No.43/4 dated 4.7.2003 for depositing Rs.9720/- which was protested by him in his application dated 29.12.2003 that house tax notices be treated as null and void because there was no tenant in his house, nevertheless to settle the matter. However, he deposited Rs.9720/- under protest vide cheque No. 089157-90224000. In fact, his son was residing in a portion of his residence in 24, Lower Mall, Kapurthala and he was not a tenant. The officials of the Municipal Committee, Kapurthala inspected his house and was satisfied that his portion of the house was not given on rent at all, but the Municipal Committee, Kapurthala was reluctant to refund the amount and rather they issued fresh notice which amounts to deficiency in service on its part. It is also averred that on the basis of the inquiry report of Municipal Committee, Kapurthala, his case was approved by the Higher Authority i.e. The Director, Local Bodies, Punjab Chandigarh that the house is self occupied. Therefore, he is entitled to the refund of the amount of Rs.9720/-.<br /> 3. The opposite parties appeared, controverted the allegations and resisted the claim of complainant. This fact is not disputed that the amount of Rs.9720/- was deposited by the complainant as house tax in pursuance of the notice from Municipal Committee, Kapurthala vide No.43/4 dated 4.7.2003. Factum of reply of notice <br /> <br /> -2-<br /> submitted by the complainant disputing about any tenant in the house and further deposit of amount of Rs.9720/- under protest to settle the matter is not disputed. It is further pleaded that in the assessment year 1992-93 one Mukesh Bhalla was tenant in the portion of the house of the complainant at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month vide assessment record. However, the complainant did not intimate to the Municipal Committee, Kapurthala. Later on the said tenant had left the demised premises. The son of the complainant may be living in his house. It is denied that the complainant had given any application to the Municipal Committee, Kapurthala for refunding the amount. The notice Annexure-D, if any, was sent to the complainant was over sight. This fact is also not disputed that after the report of the inquiry team of Municipal Committee, Kapurthala, the case was approved by the Higher Authority i.e. the Director, Local Bodies, Punjab Chandigarh vide letter dated 28.2.2008. However, the recovery of the amount of Rs.9720/- deposited by the complainant as house tax was legal and justified as it was due from the complainant as the amount of house tax up to 2003-04. Therefore, there was no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the Municipal Committee, Kapurthala.<br /> 4. The complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit<br /> Ex.PA and copies of various documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. On the other hand the counsel for the opposite parties have<br /> tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri S.K. Aggarwal Ex.R/A, copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed the evidence.<br /> <br /> -4-<br /> 6. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently urged before us that the house tax amounting to Rs.9720/- was illegally charged from the complainant by the opposite parties Municipal Committee, Kapurthala which amounts to deficiency in service against which he is entitled to refund thereof alongwith the monetary compensation for deficiency in service. On the other hand the learned counsel for the Municipal Committee, Kapurthala/opposite parties has vehemently urged before us that firstly the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute of taxation levied under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 as it was the statutory function of the Municipal Committee to levy and collect the house tax from the residents fallen within its Municipal jurisdiction. Thus this taxpayer of the Municipal Committee is not consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. He further urged that the amount of Rs.9720/- was validly and legally assessed and charged vide Ex.R1 on account of house tax in respect of the tenanted portion of the house of the complainant. He fairly admitted that after the inquiry report dated 28.2.2008 of the team of Municipal Committee, Kapurthala duly approved by the High Authority, the house tax was not levied and the notice dated 15.5.2008 Ex.R5 was issued with oversight. It is thus urged that the collection of the house tax by the Municipal Committee, under the statue does not constitute deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. We have considered the contentions of counsel for the parties. <br /> <br /> -5-<br /> We do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the complainant. Apropos the plea of learned counsel for the Municipal Committee, the taxpayer is not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, it may be pointed out that the Municipal Committee, is duly empowered under Chapter-V of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 to levy the tax. The remedies are also available to the aggrieved taxpayer under Sections 84, 85 and the taxation is not to be questioned otherwise than the said Act as per Section 86 of the Act ibid. Therefore, the statutory function regarding the levy and collection of the taxes by Municipal Committee, under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 was not intended to be interfered by such taxpayer under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act on the purported plea that the additional remedy is available under this Act. Even otherwise, there is no such plea in the complaint that the complainant had paid consideration or indirectly by way of paying any Municipal tax either. Reliance is also placed in a case reported as Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 1994 (2) C.L.T. Page 385 in which it is clearly held that the Municipal Committee Taxpayer is not a consumer viz a viz the Municipal Committee under the Consumer Protection Act and there is no question of any deficiency in service in any conjectural service hired by him for consideration. The complainant has no doubt protested about the levy of house tax vide applications Ex.P8 to Ex.P13 and the Municipal Committee, Kapurthala justified the levy of tax on account of the tenanted portion in the house of the complainant, though later on vide report dated 28.2.2008 Annexure-E house tax <br /> <br /> -6-<br /> was not levied as the said tenant was no longer in occupation. Be that as it may, since the complainant does not fall within the ambit of whatsoever under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as defined in Section 2(1) (d), we hold that the complaint is not maintainable.<br /> 8. In the ultimate analysis of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that this complaint is not maintainable and as such, the same is dismissed. However, time taken in pursuing this complaint by the complainant shall not be counted for the purpose of limitation in seeking the civil remedy before the court court. Copy of the judgment be sent to the parties free of costs through registered post without any delay. File be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dated: Gulshan Prashar A.K. Sharma<br /> 03.11.2008 Member President