(Delivered on 06/09/2016)

PER SHRI B.A. SHAIKH, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         This appeal is filed  by the original complainant  against the order dated 27/12/2013, passed in consumer complaint No. 782/2013, by the District Forum, Nagpur , by which complaint has been dismissed on the ground that  the complainant /appellant  cannot be said to the consumer of the  opposite party (for short O.P.) Municipal Corporation, Nagpur  as the house in question  does not  stand in  her name and electric meter also does not stand in her name.

2.         The facts  which are not disputed  in  brief  are as under:

            The original complainant/appellant  resides in a house at Nagpur. The said house was originaly owned by the deceased Leelabai Dattatraya Rigne. She died leaving no legal heir. The O.P. issued  notice dated 22/07/1998 to her and directed her  to  leave the house as it is in  dilapidated  condition.  Therefore, the complainant  challenged the said notice by filing Civil Suit bearing  No. RCS-402/2009 before the Civil Court, Nagpur  and obtained  temporary injunction  against the O.P.  The said Civil Suit is still pending  before the Civil Court. The complainant /appellant paid property tax of the said house from the year  2007 to 2013 to the O.P.  The O.P. refused  to accept  the property tax of the year 2013. Therefore, the complainant  sent the cheque for the amount of property tax by Registered Post A.D. to the O.P. on 29/08/2013 which was received by the O.P.  However, the O.P. did not  issue receipt of the same, but retained the said  cheque.           

3.         It is thus alleged by the complainant in the consumer complaint  filed before the Forum  that the O.P. rendered deficient service  to the complainant by not  issuing  tax receipt of the year 2013 to her. She prayed in the complaint  that the O.P. be directed to pay  her  compensation  of Rs. 1,00,000/- and cost or Rs. 10,000/- with interest  at the rate of 18% p.a. and to issue receipt of property tax, which she paid  by way of cheque. 

4.         The Forum at the stage of hearing on admission  of the complaint, passed the impugned order on 27/12/2013 and thereby dismissed the complaint holding  that the complainant is not a consumer  as the house  and the electric meter does not  stand  in her name.  Therefore, this appeal is filed  against  that order by the original  complainant. 

5.         We have heard learned advocate of the appellant/complainant. The respondent /original O.P. failed to appear  before this Commission despite  service of notice. Therefore,  appeal is proceeded  exparte against  the respondent /O.P. We have also perused the copies of record of the original complaint  as placed before us by the learned advocate of the appellant. 

6.         It is submission of the learned advocate of the appellant  in brief  that  as the respondent  refused to accept  the property  tax of the house  from the appellant where she   is residing, she sent the same by way of cheque to the respondent /O.P. which was received.  But no tax receipt was issued  nor the respondent /O.P. encahsed the  said cheque and nor it is returned  to appellant and therefore it amounts  to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent /O.P. He  relied on the decision of the following case in support of  his submission that  the public officer or statutory body can be  also  held as service provider if they are not acting   in accordance with law. In the case of   Ghaziabad Development  Authority  Vs. Balbir Sing , reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court, 2141 it is  held that   the Consumer Protection Act,1986 has wide  reach  and the Commission has jurisdiction  even in cases of service rendered  by statutory  and public authorities  and such authorities  become liable  to compensate for  misfeasance in public  office. 

7.         Thus according  to the learned advocate of the appellant  there is no bar  for payment of property tax by occupier  of the house and as complainant  is  legally occupying  the house she has rightly paid  the property tax of  which  no receipt  is issued  by the respondent /O.P.. Thus he contended that  the Forum has not considered this aspect in right  perspective  and erred in dismissing  the complaint  at its  threshold.  He therefore, requested that  the impugned order  may be set aside  and complaint  may be remanded to the District Consumer Forum for deciding it on merit in accordance with law. 

8.         It is pertinent to note  that the complaint   before the Forum is maintainable  only when  it is shown  that  the complainant is a consumer  and she hired services of the O.P. by paying certain consideration and the O.P. has not provided the service  to her.  In the instant case payment of property tax does not fall within the purview of the  consideration so as to hire  service of the O.P. The Hon’ble  National Commission in the case of the  Mayer, Calcutta Muncipal Corporation  Vs. Tarapada Chatterjee and  others , 1994 (I) CPR 87 has held that  dispute  raised by complainant  about inadequacy of pressure in  water supply system is not a consumer dispute  as the complainant by paying  tax cannot be said to have hired services of Municipality , which discharges statutory function. Moreover,  the learned Maharashtra State Commission  in the case of  Raosahed Devrao Hajare Vs. Ulhasnagar  Muncipal Council  V-1993 (2) CPR 234 has held that  the complainant as  municipal tax payer cannot be considered as a “Consumer  of municipal services. Thus it is well settled that  the property tax payer cannot be termed as a consumer as defined  under section  2(I)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence  complaint before  the Forum is not maintainable  in the present case. 

9.         Moreover, we also find that it cannot be said that  the O.P./respondent  has rendered deficient  service  to the complainant /appellant  by refusing  to accept  the property tax from her and  consequently  not issuing property tax receipt   to her. We find that  the dispute  involved  in between  appellant one side and  O.P. on another  side does not fall within  the ambit of the consumer dispute as contemplated  under the Consumer Protection Act,1986. Thus we hold that  the Forum has not committed any error in  dismissing the complaint at its  threshold. Therefore there is no merit  in this appeal  and it deserves to be dismissed in limine.

ORDER

i.          The appeals is dismissed in limine.

ii.          No order as to cost in appeal.

iii          Copy of order be  furnished  to both the parties, free of cost.