Municipal Council vs ROSHAN LAL

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.

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. 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.

We do not want to go into all the facts contained in the pleadings of the parties as the appeal is liable to be allowed only on the point of jurisdiction with regard to the matter whether the complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties or not. While deciding the above-said matter as to whether the complainant was a consumer or not, the District Forum has held as under: "The complainant has produced sufficient material on the file to prove, that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are deficient in rendering its services towards the complainant consumer."

The District Forum has not pointed out as to what was the sufficient material on the file which proved that the complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties. The definite objection taken by the opposite parties that the facility to extinguish the fire does not come within the purview of "services for consideration" and "consumer" and that the complainant did not pay any house-tax to the opposite party No. 1 as he was not owner to the property and owner of the property was his mother. No material was pointed out by the District Forum as to on what basis the complainant could be held as a consumer of the opposite parties.

IN these circumstances, we allow both these appeals on this short ground and remand the cases to the District Forum for fresh decision in accordance with law by passing a detailed and reasoned order. The District Forum shall also give proper opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned. Appeal allowed.