Kerala

Idukki

CC/1/2019

k c Mathew - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary Gramapanchayath - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jul 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 04/01/2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31^st day of August  2022

Present :

                     SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                     PRESIDENT

                     SMT.ASAMOL P.                                 MEMBER                      

                     SRI.AMPADY K.S.                               MEMBER                    

CC NO.01/2019

Between

Complainant                        :  K.C.Mathew, S/o Chacko,

                                               Karikoottathil House, Nayarupara P.O.,

                                               Idukki , Damtop, Idukki District.

                                               (By Adv.K.B.Selvam)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                        And

Opposite Party                     : The Secretary,

                                                Mariyapuram Gramapanchayath,

                                                Mariyapuram, Idukki,

                                                 Represented Mariyapuram Gramapanchayath.

                                                (By Adv.P.A.Suhas)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

          Complainant's case is briefly discussed hereunder:-

 .
          1 .Complainant is residing within the limit of Mariyapuram Gramapanchayath.  He has been paying building tax so he has the right to get some privileges from opposite party and also opposite party has to fulfil certain legal responsibilities.

 

2 . On 03/08/2018, complainant reached at Idukki Dam Top Junction for going to church by bus.  At that time, some stray dogs had attacked and bitten him.  Complainant had sustained in gone and fallen down.  Local persons who came there, had chased the dogs away.  Thereafter complainant has gone to Medical College Hospital, Idukki for treatment.  Complainant had to take four  dosage of anti-rabbies vaccine within one month.  Complainant is a business man.  He could not do his work for one month.  Also he was suffering mental agony due to these incident.  Therefore, all this are to be compensated.

 

                                                                                                       (Cont.....2)

 

-2-

 

3 . Many agencies are ready to give financial support to opposite party for  controlling street dogs.  But opposite party has not taken any steps in this regard  to save the life of public.

 

4 . People were attacked many times by these street dogs.  It is the responsibility of opposite party to nullify the threat/danger of stray dogs.  Complainant has prayed the following reliefs.

 

1. Opposite party may be directed to take immediate steps for  eradicate these street dogs.

 

2. Rs.1 lakh as compensation may be awarded to complainant for his sufferings and mental agonies from opposite  party.

 

3. Also, opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.

 

Upon notice from the Forum, opposite party entered  appearance and filed written version.  The contentions of opposite party are briefly narrated hereunder:-

 

According to opposite party,  complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Opposite party was not informed about the attack on complainant by street dog. Complainant was not preferred any complaint before opposite party about the incident.  Allegations to contrary are false and hence  may not be considered by this Forum.

 

Many tourists choose dam top place for resting.  No complaint was received about the trouble of stray dogs.  Normally  there is no disturbance of street dogs.  Upon search/inspection by opposite party, there was no garbage or grime at dam top place.  According to opposite party, there was no stray dog attack as alleged.  Panchayath had demanded this complainant to take dog license for his own domestic dog.  But complainant didn't apply for taking license yet.  It is possible that either complainant was attacked by his own dog or by any other dog at any other place.  Hence this complaint may be dismissed with cost of opposite party.

 

 

                                                                                                       (Cont.....3)

 

 

-3-

 

After filing written version, the case was posted for evidence.  Complainant has filed proof affidavit.  Documents also produced.  These were marked as Ext.P1 series.  Complainant was examined as PW1.  Opposite party has filed written version.  No evidence tendered by opposite party.  Heard the counsel for opposite party.  Now the points which arise for consideration are

 

(1)  Whether complainant is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act?

(2)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

(3)  What reliefs are entitled to complainant?

 

Point No.1

 

We have perused complaint.  According to complainant, he is a tax payer to opposite party, hence he has the right to get some privileges from opposite party and opposite party has to fulfil certain responsibilities to complainant.  But complainant is not a consumer under Consume Protection Act, 1986  Consumer means any person who

 

1 . Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purposes, or

 

2 .  Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of )the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose).  Therefore here there was no hiring of services by the complainant for consideration from opposite party.

 

 

 

                                                                                                      (Cont.....4)

 

-4-

Section 2(0) of Consumer Protection Act – defines 'service' means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.

 

In Sri. A.Sreenivasa Murthy V., Chairman, Bangalore Development authority case, the  question which arose was, as to whether a tax payer could be considered to be a consumer in respect of service rendered by an authority.  In this case complainant who paid house tax brought an action against Bangalore development authority for having failed to check the menace of stray dogs, and claimed compensation for dog bite.  It was held by Honourable Karnataka SCDRC, that there is no quid proquo between tax paid and general duty of the Bangalore development authority, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(7)(ii) of the Act.

 

In this complaint, even though complainant has paid building tax to opposite party, there is no quid proquo between the complainant and opposite party as held in the  decision of SCRDC, Karnataka.  Hence complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.  Point No.(1) is answered accordingly. 

 

Point No.(2) and (3)

 

As there is no consumer service provider relationship between parties there is no question of any Consumer Disputes arising between them, let alone the question of deficiency in service. Complaint is rejected.

 

          Pronounced by this Commission on this the 31^st day of  August 2022.

 

                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                             SMT.ASAMOL P.,  MEMBER                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                  SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                            SRI.AMPADY K.S.,   MEMBER

 

 

 

                                                                                                      (Cont.....5)

-5-

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 – K.C.Mathew

PW2 – Alan Fradis

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1series – Medical Certificates

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

 

 

                                                                                      Forwarded by Order

 

  

                                                                                 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR