This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant Debnarayan Banerjee by filing against Kolkata Municipal Corporation has alleged that as flat owner he received property tax bill for the period of 2011-2012 in respect of flat in the name of the complainant and as per properties bill complainant paid the said bill in the office of the OP but did not receive any further property tax bill for the period 2012-2013 in respect of that flat at 4^th floor of premises No.4A, Satis Mukherjee Road, P.S. Tollygunge, Kolkata – 26 having assessee no.11 – 084 – 20 – 0180 – 0.

          Finding no other alternative complainant requested the office of the KMC Borough – 9 Alipore for issuing the duplicate Property Tax bill in respect of the said flat enabling the complainant to pay the Property Tax for the said flat and they accordingly handed over duplicate Property Tax bill on 11-05-2012 that after obtaining such duplicate tax bill complainant found that the said bill is entirely wrong in respect of assessee no., owners name, flat no. etc. and rebate allowed up to 23-05-2012 and after receiving the wrong Property Tax bill in respect of the said flat on 11-05-2012 complainant wrote a letter to the OP stating non-performance of the dates and not rendering the proper service by the OP for issuing Property Tax bill and OP duly received the letter but after lapse of two months OP issued corrected Property Tax bill on 11-07-2012 with penalty and as per instruction and direction of the OP1 but finding no other alternative complainant paid a sum of Rs.6,054/- on 12-07-2012 accordingly complainant made allegation against the OP about their rendering service and also not for giving Property Tax bill properly when complainant has been paying tax regularly.  In that premises complainant suffered financially loss for negligent and deficient manner of service of the OPs.

          On the other hand OP by filing written statement submitted that entire complaint is not maintainable in view of the fact complainant got mutation certificate from KMC Department and as per Mutation Certificate complainant is bound to pay the tax for his flat on the assessee no.110842000890 to the KMC Department and complainant has admitted that he has already paid the tax against that assessee no. and all other flat owners received the tax bill and object the same and also availed of rebate and complainant admitted that he received the tax bill under assessee no.11084200090 for Rs.5,001/- but he did not pay the same amount to the KMC by cash or cheque.  So, it is absolutely the fault on the part of the OP for which he did not get the rebate and it is a clerical mistake which may be corrected forthwith by the assessee by the office of the KMC so question of service provider status of the OP does not arise so present complaint should be dismissed and further entire complaint is vexatious and same should be dismissed.

Decision with Reasons

On meticulous study of the complaint and also written version and also relying upon the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant and the OP it is found that moot question is whether OP KMC rendred negligent and deficiency manner of service to the complainant or not.  Fact remains this forum placed one vital question to the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant whether payment of tax can constitute payment of consideration for the hiring or availing service for consideration or not but Ld. Lawyer for the complainant bypassed that subject and tried to convince that on payment of tax only corporation is discharging their statutory duty and corporation is maintaining the system of water supply and other matters and further complainant is getting water supply to his premises as performance of the statutory duty of the corporation.  So, tax is consideration against the service but in this regard we have gathered that there is definition in between tax and fee.  In landmark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1980 (1) SCC     416 has observed “a tax is the compulsory exaction of money by public authority for public purpose enforceable by law and is not payment for services rendered.  A fee may generally be defined as a charge for a special service rendered to notice by some government agencies.  The amount of fee levied is supposed to be based on expenses incurred by the Government in rendering the service.  The distinction between a tax and a fee lies primarily in the fact the tax is levied as a part of no burden while a fee is a payment for special benefit of privilege.  Similarly Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported in 1978 (2) SCC 367 held that a legal fee must satisfy to condition namely - (1) There must be an element quid pro quo i.e. to say the authority levying the fee must render some service for the fee levied, however remote the source may be.  (2) That the fee raised must be sent for the purpose of imposition and should not form on the part of general revenue of the State and in this context we have considered the present payment of Property Tax by the complainant to the OP and no doubt levied as per provision of Section 174 of CMC Act, 1980 and the construction and maintenance of water works and providing means for supply of public and private purposes they are specified in Section 29 of the said Act as one of the obligatory statutory provisions of the Corporation and it was only for the said statutory duty that the corporation was maintaining the system of water supply to the complainant and other people within duly as per limits.  Complainant has been getting water supply to his premises and other services only by virtue of performance of the statutory duty by the corporation.  So, question is whether the payment of tax can constitute payment of consideration for the hiring or availing service for consideration or not.  When in this it is found that payment of tax which goes to the fund of the corporation the government organization who are looking after the daily services of the public and the private persons and in the light of the principle as laid down in the decision reported in 1994(1) CPJ 1999 NC and also 1991 (II) CPJ 56 NC it is manifested that the payment of Property Tax is not consideration for hiring or availing of a service and there is no nexus between the tax and the services rendered by the municipality and any application about any collection of such tax does not make the assessee as a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act and when complainant is not consumer on payment of property tax to the OP and of the OP the present complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law.  When that is the fact then for any error in the tax bill cannot be treated as a consumer dispute under the provision of the C.P. Act and on proper consideration of entire materials and legal position we are confirmed that present complainant is not consumer under the OP and at the same time the payment of tax is not considered as consideration for hiring or availing of service against consideration.  In the result the complainant is not a consumer and so, the complaint does not bear any merit in the eye of law and the dispute as raised about the incorrect tax bill is not consumer dispute.  But we have gathered that if any authority does not give any service to the public at large in that case the new enactment Janapratinidhi Porisheba Adhikar Ayn, 2013 may be applied to and in respect of that Act one cannot say that he is a consumer but it is one type of right given by such enactment for that purpose and there is such authority before whom the complainant may raise objection or dissatisfaction for relief but the complaint in this Forum is not maintainable.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost against the OPs.