Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member
1. These three appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they are filed against the identical three orders passed by District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur on the same date i.e. 11.06.2014 in three identical complaints bearing Nos.86/2014, 88/2014 & 92/2014. These three appeals are filed by the three original complainants in the said three complaints. Both parties in these three appeals are being referred to by their original status in the three complaints as complainants and the opposite parties (for short O.Ps), for the sake of convenience.
2. The common case of the three complainants as set out by them in their respective complaint in brief is as under.
The O.P.No.1 is Municipal Council of Chandrapur and O.P.No.2 is private company which supplies water to the residents of Chandrapur. There is control of O.P.No.1 over O.P.No.2. The O.P. No.1 has provided water connection line to the said three complainants. However, O.P.Nos.1 & 2 did not supply water to the complainants from the month of Oct. 2013 though they are responsible for providing water. The complainants are required to purchase water by expending Rs.100/- per day. Therefore, the complainants had prayed in their respective complaints that direction be given to O.P.Nos.1 & 2 to provide them water immediately and to pay them compensation @ Rs.200/- per day till water supply is continued and not to demand the water tax of last one year from them and also to pay each of them compensation of Rs.25,000/- for physical & mental harassment and cost of Rs.10,000/-.
3. The complainants, alongwith complaint, had filed copies of water tax payment receipts and the representations made by them and other persons to O.P.Nos.1 & 2 for providing water to their respective houses.
4. The Forum below at the stage of admission of these three complaints heard the learned advocate of the complainants and perused the complaints and documents filed by them. The Forum then passed the three identical impugned orders on 11.06.2014 in the said three complaints and thereby dismissed the complaints.
5. The Forum made common observations in the impugned orders that the complainants have paid water tax to the O.P.No.1 and they have not paid water charges and there is difference in water tax and water cess. The Forum also observed that as the complainants have paid water tax, they do not fall within the definition of the “Consumer” and hence complaints are not maintainable. In consequences of the said finding, the Forum dismissed the three complaints.
- As observed above, the original complainants have filed these three appeals. The appeals were fixed for hearing at the stage of admission on 29.08.2016. However, on that date none had appeared for the appellant though Advocate Mr Sahu had appeared for O.P.No.1/ respondent No.1 herein and Advocate Mr Shende was present for O.P.No.2 / respondent No.2 herein. We therefore, heard Advocate Mr Sahu and Advocate Mr Shende at the stage of admission of these three appeals. We have also perused the copies of the record of the complaint filed before us by the appellants.
- The appellants in their respective appeal memoes raised the first ground that the appellants are given consumer numbers by the O.Ps and therefore they are consumers. The second ground raised in the appeal memoes is that the Forum has not properly considered the case laws cited by the appellants and it erred in relying on the decisions in RP/933/2008 passed by State Commission, Raipur and therefore, impugned order is illegal and it may be set aside.
- The learned advocate of the respondents relied on the following decisions in support of their submission that the complainants are not the consumer as they are tax payers and the Forum has rightly dismissed their complaints.
i. Raosaheb Devrao Hajare Vs. Ullhasnagar Municipal Council, V 1993(2) CPR 234.
It is observed by the learned State Commission, Mumbai that complainant as a tax payer cannot be considered as a consumer of Municipal services.
- The Mayor, Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vs. Tarapada Chatterjee & Ors., 1994(1) CPR 87.
The Hon’ble National Commission observed in that case that the dispute raised by the complainant about inadequacy of pressure in water supply system, is not the consumer dispute as the complainant by paying tax cannot be said to have hired service of Municipal Committee which discharges statutory function.
- It is pertinent to note that the complainants / appellants have filed the receipts showing payment of water tax. Moreover, in their respective complaints they also prayed that direction be given to the O.Ps not to recover water taxes for last year from them.
- It is not the specific case of the appellants / complainants that they had paid water cess to the O.P. The aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned advocate of the respondents, supports their case that by paying water tax, it cannot be said that the complainants / appellants have hired services of the O.Ps / respondents. Hence, we are of the view that tax payer cannot be called as consumer as defined under Section 2(i)(d) of Consumer Protection Act. Thus, the Forum has not committed any error in dismissing the complaints. Accordingly, all these appeals deserve to be dismissed.
ORDER
i. All the appeals bearing Nos.A/14/208 to A/14/210 are hereby dismissed in lilmine.
ii. No order as to costs in these appeals.
iii. Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
