LAWS(NCD)-2003-6-20

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. ROSHAN LAL

Decided On June 09, 2003
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Appellant
V/S
ROSHAN LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals bearing Nos.1118 and 1119 of 2001 which are directed against the orders dated 20.8.2001 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (hereinafter called the "district Forum"), are being disposed of by a common order as similar questions of law and facts are involved therein and facts are being taken from Appeal No.1118 of 2001.

(2.) Brief facts stated in the complaint are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the "complainant") was running the business of sale of pre-recorded as well as blank audio cassettes in a shop owned by his mother Smt. Gyan Devi, who was paying the House-tax and fire cess, etc. charged from time-to-time by the Municipal Council, Malout, appellant (opposite party No.1 before the District Forum (hereinafter called the "opposite party" No.1" ). On 14.9.2001 at about 10.00 p. m. a fire broke out in the shop of the complainant and material worth Rs.4,90,800/- lying in the shop of the complainant was allegedly destroyed. It was alleged in the complaint that the opposite parties were informed about the fire in the shop and the latter stated that their Fire Brigade was out of order and they had no funds to get it repaired. Therefore, the complainant had called the Fire Brigade from Muktsar and Gidderbaha, who charged Rs.400/- each from him for controlling the fire. It was contended by the complainant that due to negligence of the opposite parties, the goods lying in the shop of the complainant were destroyed and, thus, the opposite parties were liable to pay the amount claimed along with damages, etc.

(3.) The opposite parties in their reply contended that the complainant was not a consumer of the opposite parties under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act as payment of taxes to a local authority did not constitute payment of consideration for any service that the authority is liable to render in terms of statutory obligations. Thus, according to the reply filed, the complaint was not maintainable in the present form and the same deserved dismissal with special costs.