HON’BLE JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, PRESIDENT

       This appeal has been directed assailing the judgment and order dated 13-12-2016 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-III (South) in CC/252/16 where Ld. Forum concerned while disposing of the complaint case dismissed the same on contest.

       Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of dismissal, the present appeal has been preferred by the complainant, who filed the complaint case claiming certain reliefs in terms of his prayers as per his petition of complaint.

       Brief fact of the case, was that the complainant being the owner of the land and building at premises no. 124/1, Briji Road, Kolkata – 700084 under the KMC, ward no. 110. He constructed a building on the said premises as per plan, sanctioned by the Authority of the KMC and on payment of development charges/costs regarding road, drainage etc. adjacent to the said premises. There is a common passage running from north to south on the adjacent eastern side of the land used for ingress and egress from the said building of the complainant for going to the nearest KMC road. The complainant stated that the said premises and the adjacent area are underdeveloped, one of the said passage connecting the premises of the complainant having no drain and no sewerage facility though the municipal authority collects taxes and other charges from the complainant and being aggrieved by the neglecting attitude of the KMC he was forced  to file the complaint case claiming reliefs as a consumer from the statutory body under the KMC as per provision of Consumer Protection Act.

       The OPs no. 1 – 3 in their written version denied the allegations including their liabilities for providing civic amenities for their survival but contended that the KMC being a statutory authority collects the development charges from its citizens including drainage, development fees etc.

       The OPs/respondents herein categorically stated that the complainant could not be termed as a “consumer” under the KMC since the municipal authority performed his statutory duties and ultimately the order of dismissal was prayed for.

       Now the point for consideration whether Ld. Trial Forum was justified  in dismissing the complaint case or not.

       The fact of the case that the complainant is a citizen living within the area under the KMC is not disputed. The complainant produced documents (which is at page 21 of the file) to establish that he paid drainage development fees to the tune of Rs. 11,920/- (Rupees eleven thousand nine hundred twenty) and drainage development fees to the tune of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) on 06-04-2009 i.e. for the year 2009 but we are afraid, such type of charges can never be treated as creating a right to claim service as a “consumer” within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The KMC being a statutory body is to provide services for the public at large but such service cannot be termed as “service” within the meaning of section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Such a service is not meant for the benefit of private individual but for the public at large, as referred to earlier. Ld. Trial Forum in the impugned judgment categorically held that the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer within the section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. Ld. Trial Forum in the impugned judgment categorically discussed all these issues elaborately and came to the finding that the complainant does not deserve any relief in the manner as he claimed and in our opinion he may claim such relief by way of filing any petition in the category of public interest litigation before the Appropriate Authority.

       Regard being had to the facts of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-III (South) and as a result we dismiss the appeal resulting dismissal of the complaint case. We make no order as to costs.