MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SANGRUR THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER vs PARVEEN GOYAL

VIDE this order two Appeal Nos. 604 of 1997 and 622 of 1997 are being disposed of as the question involved in these two cases it common. Main judgment is prepared in Appeal No. 622 of 1997. Dr. Parveen Goyal, a resident of Sangrur is the complainant. He sought sanction of Site Plan from Municipal Council, Sangrur on deposit of requisite fee of Rs. 550/- development charges and Rs. 16,677/-. These charges were collected at the rate then prevalent in view of resolution of Municipal Council of 1993. Subsequently in 1996, the Municipal Council revised that resolution and reduced the rate of development charges. Thus, the complainant claimed refund of excess amount charged from him by the Municipal Council towards development charges. The Municipal Council in the reply filed took up several pleas challenging locus standi of the complainant to file the complaint as a consumer and that the dispute was not a consumer dispute. For refund of such charges complaint did not lie. It was further stated that the resolution of 1996 was to operate prospectively and not retrospectively. The stand of the complainant weighed with the District Forum resulting in passing the impugned order on April 30,1997. A direction was given to the Municipal Council to return the difference of development charges as referred to above to the complainant. Further direction was given to Municipal Council to provide the development facilities like street lights, levelling of streets and other facilities upto December, 31,1997 and the remaining facilities upto December 31, 2000. It may be observed that similar directions were given in the connected case referred to above. These orders have been challenged by the Municipal Council through these appeals. The word ''consumer'' has been defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act as under : "consumer" means any person who- (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not includes a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) (hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary or such services other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person."

OBVIOUSLY, present is not a case of sale of any goods that Clause (i) referred to above could be attracted to the case. Likewise present is not a case of hiring services by the complainant of the Municipal Council in the matter of maintenance of systems, water supply, sewerage, roads etc. even on payment of taxes or charges levied as termed as development charges, under rules and regulations of the Municipal Council by passing resolutions referred to above. Even if some amount had been paid in excess by the complainant as is alleged, for refund of the same complaint was not maintainable. In this context, reference be made to decision of this Commission in Ranjit Singh Dhillon v. Punjab Petroleum Corpn. & Ors., 1997 (2) CON.LT 626.

The FORA could not go into the question of quantum or rate of development charges to be. levied by the Municipal Council under different schemes. Such a question is outside the scope of consumer dispute to be tried by the FORA under the Consumer Protection Act. The claim for refund, thus, was not maintainable before the FORA. Even otherwise when taxes are imposed, they are to operate prospectively unless specifically stated to be retrospectively. When development charges were reduced by the Municipal Council, that resolution would apply prospectively and will not apply to the cases settled earlier thereto. No further comment on merit is required since the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints as mentioned above. Both the appeals are allowed and the orders of the District Forum are set aside. Appeals allowed.