JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY
SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:
The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Party (herein after referred in short as OP) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OP.
2. The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant is permanent resident of the address mentioned in the Complaint. The OP is the Public Institution to provide basic facilities like, drainage, sanitation, water etc. For which, the OP collects the money in the form of taxes to provide these amenities and also collects the separate taxes to provide water facilities.
3. The Complainant alleged that the OP had paid tax to supply the water alternative days, but water will be supplied only once in a 15 days. OP had collects the water taxes every month. Drinking water which is preserved for 15 days causes many diseases. The OP prepares budget every year and allocates the amount for all the development works for every ward.
4. The road situated in Ward No.31 opposite to Church had been damaged in a such a way that it is impossible walk on the road and even the drainage system have also been damaged, the Complainant had approach the OP’s several time and requested to take over the development work and clean the water deposited on the damage road and drain from which mosquitos and germs are affecting the residence of the area from the disease like, chicken gunya, malaria etc.
5. The Complainant has stated that he had requested OP by a notice through his counsel, along with a DD of Rs.75/-, for issuing a certified copy of allocated amount in budget to this ward. Further, Complainant had alleged that OP had failed to fulfill the supply of the purified drinking water and take over the development works like, road repair, construction of damaged drains etc. for which the OP had committed deficiency in service and prayed to deal according to law.
6. Further, he had prayed that Gadag-Betegeri and market area roads have also been fully damaged and OP had not taken the development work they had prayed to order for the repair of the above said roads immediately. The OP had failed to supply the water daily, hence the Complainant prayed a compensation of Rs.3,000/- for loss and mental agony, the other reliefs this Forum deems fit.
7. The predecessor on seat registered the Complaint and notice were ordered as such OP appeared through his advocate and filed his Vakalat and Written Version.
Brief facts of the Written Version:
The OP alleged that the case is not maintainable either in law or the fact.
8. The main contention of the OP is that the Municipality is not only providing public road, gutters and purified water but they had to facilated many works like, education, library, hospital etc. and submits that he should be maintained within the resource accumulated by collecting taxes which is very hard to maintain and as the budget is not sufficient to look into day to day running of CMC. Contradict to the Complaint, OP denied that OP is supplying water properly and further submits that water supplied to Gadag city is from Tungabhadra River and purified at Mundaragi, this water is to be supplied to Betegeri and some villages and also to Gadag, since the OP submits that it is impossible to supply the water alternative days since the pipeline is installed in the year 1981, it is the old pipeline of 30 years and OP further submit that the population is over comparing to 30 years back and OP is trying to procure water from Tungabhadra river is under process. When it is once started the water will be supplied alternative days.
9. OP submits that regarding to the water supply there is lot of factors to be look into like, electricity, technically and break down of machineries of procuring water to the city against all these things.
10. The OP further alleged that budget allocated to all Wards including 28th and 31st Ward, these funds is utilized for construction of roads and gutters in future days. These works are done in stage to stage and OP cannot do the work once in all at a time and people have not utilized the facilities provided by the OP properly they themselves creates new sense. OP submits that at market road area also the road and drainage work is under process and submits that the diseases are not only at the city of Gadag. These diseases come from Virus which has been found in all the cities also and finally OP submits that the Complainant does not comes under this Forum and this case comes under public interest litigation. Hence, Complaint may be dismissed with costs.
11. In the background of the above said pleadings, the Complainant himself examined as CW1 in support of the allegation the documents produced are marked as Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P12 and the unmarked document are 05 in numbers. On the other hand, OP filed affidavit and written arguments on his defence. Heard both the side. After perusing the documents, evidence adduced the following points arises before us for our consideration:
1. | Whether this Complaint is maintainable? |
2. | What Order? |
Our Answer to the above Points are:-
Point No.1 – Negative,
Point No.2 – As per the final order.
12. On consideration of pleading, objection, evidence, documents and arguments of the parties, we answer the above points as under:
R E A S O N S
13. POINT NO.1: This is the case of the Complainant that the OP had failed to take over the development works like, construction of a road, drainage and supplying of water. The Complainant alleges in Complaint that the roads has been damaged in such a way that the public cannot walk properly on roads including the Complainant.
14. Further, the Complainant alleged that the water has deposited on the damaged road from which the residence of the area are suffering from several diseases like chicken gunya, malaria etc. Further, the Complainant had alleged that the water is not being supplied regularly but, it is supplied at an interval of 15 days for which the OP is collecting amount towards the water tax, the Complainant alleges that by this the OP had committed deficiency in service.
15. The OP is the institution to provide basic facilities like, road, drainage, supplying of purified water in the city limits along with that the OP had to provide other facilities like, hospital, library, parks, cleaning the cities etc. these works will be maintained by the amount which is collected by way of taxes.
16. As OP had stated in his Written Version, that water supplied to the city is from Tungabhadra River it is purified at Mundaragi and supplied to the city in the interval of 15 days, the water is lifted from 48 KM and supplied to the city for drinking purpose. Hence, it is not possible to supply the water every alternative days. The funds allocated in budget for development work will be for the whole city, distributed to the all the wards which cannot be utilized for individual work. Hence the Complainant is an individual person where the OP is public institution, the averments made by the Complainant cannot be treated as individual Complaint and the problem narrated in their Complaint are not individual problem, but those are all public interest Complaints.
17. Merely, paying taxes to Municipal Corporation it cannot be said that the Complainant had hired the services for consideration and Complainant does not fall within the purview of C.P. Act. Here, I rely upon a citation Revision Petition No.1026 of 2008 in Consumer Law Today 2014 (1) CLT in Page No.498. P.S.Chauhan V/s Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Durg (C.G.). In this, Hon’ble Justice K.S.Choudhari cited in the above citation as below:
“By merely paying tax to Municipal Corporation it cannot be said that Complainant has hired services for consideration and Complainant does not fall within the purview of Consumer under the Act.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (1) (d) – Consideration – Consumer – Municipal Corporation imposing Tax & Cess on the owners of the buildings – Question whether payment of tax to local bodies can be equated with consideration for hiring services under the Act and person paying the tax can be termed as Consumer? – Held – No – That tax cannot be equated with fees and merely by paying tax Complainant does not obtain any service from the OP and Complainant does not fall within the purview of Consumer”.
As stated above in the citation the taxes collected by the OP cannot equated with the fees. Hence, the OP had not charged any fee for providing any services as such the Complainant had alleged. Hence, the Complainant does not fall in the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. As such, this Complaint is not maintainable. Hence, we answer the Point No.1 in negative.
18. POINT No.2: For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass a following:
//ORDER//
1. This Complaint is dismissed. No Order on costs.
2. Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 11th day of March, 2016)
