MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DHURI Vs. CHARANJIT RICE MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Forum, Sangrur vide order dated January 21, 1998 allowed the complaint filed by M/s. Charanjit Rice Mills, Dhuri, with the direction to Municipal Council, Dhuri to provide requisite facilities of supply of potable water, connection of sewerage and other amenties in the area where the complainant firm is carrying on its business, that the Municipal Council is in appeal.

(2.) It is argued by learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant could not be treated as a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and the District Forum has erred in law in giving the direction referred to above. There is force in this contention. The perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant leave no manner of doubt that the complainant claimed to be a consumer on the ground that he was paying house-tax to the Municipal Council. He produced receipts for the year 1996-97 and thus claimed that the Municipal Council was duty bound to provide such facilities of water, sewerage, road lights etc. In the written statement filed by the Municipal Council, it was admitted that house-tax was being paid by the complainant but liability to provide such facilities was denied. It was for the Electricity Board to provide electricity and other departments to provide water and sewerage facilities. It was thereafter that the Municipal Council could give connections. It was only in the affidavit of Charanjit partner of the complainant firm that in addition to the amount of house-tax being paid in para 3 of the affidavit, it was stated that the development charges were got deposited by the opposite party from the complainant. Obviously, there was no reference to this aspect in the affidavit filed by Sh. Sardara Singh, Executive Officer of the Municipal Council as there was no plea in this respect in the complaint itself. The District Forum accepted the evidence, which was beyond the plea and held that on payment of development charges as consideration, the Municipal Council was duty bound to provide the aforesaid facilities. This approach is clearly illegal. No finding could be arrived at on a plea which did not form part of the complaint much less on such evidence which could be taken into consideration.

(3.) The complainant approached the District Forum with the plea that he was paying house-tax and thus he was a consumer entitled to get the facilities referred to above. This position has consistently been commented by judicial pronouncements holding that by payment of house-tax or taxes the person did not become a consumer as defined and the Authorities are merely implementing the law or performing their duties as provided by the law and are not rendering services as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. Some of such cases are , Ram Sarup V/s. M. C. Khanna,1997 1 CPC 181 The Director of Public Instructions (Schools) Pb. V/s. Surinder Mohan.,1997 1 CPC 187 In the later case a specific question was that on payment of taxes the person could not be treated as consumer having hired services of such Authorities, like Municipal Committee or the Water Supply Board.