COMMISSIONER, NAGAR NIGAM Vs. P.S. CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these revision petitions arise out of the single order of learned State Commission; hence, decided by common order.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has a house at Smriti Bhawan, Ward no. 25, Gayatri Mandir ward, Durg which is in the name of his wife and the complainant had paid 'Property Tax', 'Education Tax', 'Samekit Kar' for the year 2006-07. As per the averments made in the complaint, in view of payment of Samekit Kar, the complainant is entitled to light, power, drinking water and similar other facilities from the Municipal Corporation. It was further stated in the complaint that near the house of the complainant, there was a vacant plot of Sohanlal Patni which was being used as dumping ground for trash and garbage and was also used by the hut dwellers for private purposes. The complainant made repeated requests to the OP for cleaning of the said plot as it was causing nuisance to the nearby residents but the OP Corporation paid no heed to the complaints made by the complainant. It was further alleged in the complaint that the unhygienic conditions were leading to spread of various diseases. The complainant himself was suffering from allergic bronchitis and fever and had to spend lots of money towards his treatment. It was further stated that due to lack of clearing of garbage at the aforesaid plot, various persons including the tenants of the complainants as well as his wife had to suffer infection during the period from August, 2006 to October 2006 and all of them had to spend money towards treatment. It was stated in the complaint that since the complainant has paid Samekit Kar to the OP, he was entitled to various services and facilities towards which the Samekit Kar was charged under the Municipal Corporation Act and by not providing the same, the OP was liable for deficiency in service. OP resisted complaint and submitted that the house was in the name of the wife of the complainant and no amount has been charged as consideration, hence, the complainant was not the consumer of the OP. It was stated in the written version that the corporation undertakes the work of cleaning through various contractors but the plot in question was a private property and the corporation was not obliged to undertake cleaning of the said plot. It was further stated that the allegation of complainant suffering from Chronic Recurrent, Allergic, Bronchitis and fever and his wife suffering from Malaria were false. The OP has not committed any deficiency in service and the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum.

(3.) Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint on the ground that complainant does not fall within purview of consumer. Appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, these revision petitions have been filed.