E L KRISHNAMOORTHY CHETTIAR Vs. COMMISSIONER TINDIVANAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint against the Commissioner, Tindivanam Municipality and against the Revenue Inspector of Tindivanam Municipality. The case of the Complainant is that the Municipality assessed excess property tax on the Complainant properties and the Complainant preferred an appeal against the excess assessment. But the Municipal authorities have failed to take-up the appeal and dispose of the same. The allegation is that they we re expecting an illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/-. The question is whether the Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Act.

(2.) In the levy and assessment of property tax, the municipality performing a statutory function. In the first place it cannot be said to be a service rendered to the Complainant. Even assuming that it is service, it is not a service hired by the Complainant for consideration. In order to entitle the Complainant to be a consumer, he must have hired the services of the Opposite Party for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised. The Complainant has not paid any consideration for hearing the appeal preferred by him against the original assessment.

(3.) The Complainant is not a consume under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the complainant is not maintainable. The remedy of the Complaint is file a suit in competent Court of civil jurisdiction.