DATE OF FILING : 21.04.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 02.07.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 16.06.2015.
Biswajit Dutta,
son of late Bankim Chandra Dutta,
residing at 29/9, Ramji Hazra Lane, P.S. Shibpur,
District Howrah, and also at 17, Swami Vivekananda Road,
P.S. Shibpur, District Howrah. ………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
The Mayor,
Howrah Municipal Corporation,
situated at 4, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
P.O. & P.S. Shibpur,
District Howrah,
PIN 711101.
- The Chairman,
Borough III,
situated at 82, Narasingha Dutta Road, P.S. Bantra,
District Howrah,
PIN 711101. …………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak, L.l.b., ( Retired Railway Officer ).
F I N A L O R D E R
This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Biswajit Dutta, against the o.p. no. 1, Mayor, Howrah Municipal Corporation, and o.p. no. 2,Chairman, Borough No. III, praying for direction upon the o.ps. to issue mutation certificate in favour of the petitioner and also directing the o.ps. to pay compensation for a sum of Rs. 80,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
The case of the petitioner is that he acquired the schedule mentioned property and applied before the o.ps. for obtaining mutation certificate in his favour and on 08.3.2013 he paid the requisite fees. He produced his original documents and the o.p. no. 2 told him that they would issue the mutation certificate.Suddenly he got a notice from the o.p. no. 2 that he is to appear for a hearing on 11.9.2013 and he appeared and in spite of satisfying the o.ps. no mutation certificate has yet been received by him and the o.ps. did not pay heed to his works. Therefore, he filed the case.
- The o.p. no. 2 refused to receive the notice of this Forum and thus the case is heard ex part against o.p. no. 2.
- The o.p. no. 1 appeared in this case and contested the same by filing a written version denying the material allegations but did not make out any specific case as towhat prevented them from supplying the mutation certificate in favour of the petitioner.
- On the above case of the parties the following issues are framed for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner is a consumer under C.P. Act, 1986 ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience andbrevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of the case the counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 this petitioner applied for mutation certificate before the o.ps. after making payment of necessary charges. The o.ps. received the application along with requisite fees and are liable to pay the services in connection with the prayer of the petitioner. The o.p. no. 1 in his written version submitted that there is no relationship of service provider and consumer between the o.ps. and the petitioner. The o.p. being the municipal corporation has the duty to provide necessary day to day service like supplying water, cleaning garbage etc. and at the same time it is the duty to provide civic amenities in the form of providing mutation certificate like collecting taxes from the residence of the municipality. In the instant case they received the forms as well as charge for supply such mutation certificate from the petitioner and now they cannot arbitrarily say that the petitioner is not a consumer and they are not service provider. Such non supplying of mutation certificate amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. It is true that the municipal corporation is a statutory body but by virtue of being statutory body, they cannot deny their duty to provide service to the residence of the municipality who are nothing but consumer under Municipal Corporation, which is a service provider. Rather the Supreme Court of India categorically opined in the case of Nagarik Parishad vs. Garwal Jalasthan that a consumer is a person who gets the benefit of any service from the local body like the corporation and in the instant case this petitioner being a resident of the municipality is well within the meaning of the expression ‘Consumer’ and for lack of service on the part of the corporation he has the right to move the matter before the Consumer Forum. The corporation receives charges and supply amenities to the consumers and in the instant case also it is the duty of the o.ps. to provide mutation certificate to the consumer petitioner who has already submitted the application and paid relevant charges. The case of the petitioner is proved by the documents produced by him and thus he succeeded in proving his case.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds. The court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 236 of 2014 ( HDF 236 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. no. 1 and ex parte against o.p. no. 2 with costs considering the circumstances of the case.
The petitioner is entitled to get the mutation certificate from the o.ps. who are jointly and severally liable for issuing such mutation certificate in his favour within 30 days from the date of this order and also pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for the physical and mental harassment and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation costs in default the petitioner is at liberty to put the final order into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
