Tax paid by house owners to BDA is not consideration for the specific purpose of eradication of stray dogs and hence the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - DEFINITION OF CONSUMER - TAX PAID BY HOUSE OWNERS TO BDA NOT CONSIDERATION FOR ERADICATION OF STRAY DOGS - COMPLAINANT NOT A CONSUMER - NO COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:

Complainant was bitten by a stray dog and took 14 A.R. Vaccine injections. He claimed compensation from BDA for the pain and suffering undergone and for the apprehension of rabies in future.
Finding of the Court:

Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act as the tax paid by house owners to BDA is not consideration for the specific purpose of eradication of stray dogs. There is no evidence that the dog was rabid or that the complainant will suffer from rabies in future. The apprehension of the complainant is baseless and imaginary.
Issues: Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act requires that a person must have hired any services for consideration. Tax paid by house owners is for general purpose and cannot be regarded as payment for any particular or special service. There is no quid pro quo between the tax paid and the general duty of the BDA to remove the nuisance of stray dogs.
Final Decision: Complaint dismissed.

ORDER

Mr. Justice R.G. Desai, President—The case of the complainant may be briefly stated as follows: -

2. The Complainant lives at No. 27, Block 'A' CIL Layout, Rajmahal Vilas Extension, Bangalore. On 8.11.1989 at about 6.30 p.m. the Complainant and his neighbour Mr. B.K. Raghavan (CW-4) were walking along the D. Rajgopal Road about 200 Mtrs away from the residence of the complainant. At that time the Complainant was bitten by a stray dog. As it was dark, he could not identify or trace the dog to ascertain whether it was a rabid dog or not. After consulting a Doctor the complainant took A.R. Vaccine Injections from 9.11.1989 in the Corporation Maternity Home at Vyalikaval. He completed the full course of 14 painful injections. When he was to take the seventh injection he fell terrible discomfort and so he consulted the Pathologist who prescribed a course of Antibiotics. The incident happened while he was compiling information as a free lance journalist to write an article on rabies. He got anti body response result from Medinova. He consulted Dr. Gopinathan, Head of the Department of Genetic Engineering IISc, Bangalore and thereafter wrote a letter to Dr. Prasad Rao, Asst. Director, Pasteur Institute as per exhibit C-8 and received reply as per exhibit C-9. The RMO of the Epidemic Hospital, Bangalore told him that there are quite a few cases of fatalities even after 14 injections. Since the incubation period of the disease is from two week to 10 years, the complainant has to remain in constant fear of impending death till the incubation period is over. Failure on the part of the Bangalore Development Authority in providing clear safe environment is a heinous fact of negligence and indifference. The BDA was bound to eradicate the menace of stray dogs and it has failed to do its duty towards the tax-payers including the complainant. Hence he has filed this complaint claiming a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs ,1 lakh to each of his daughters for their marriage - as he apprehends that he may die due to rabies as the result of stray dog bite.

3. The complaint is resisted by the BDA by contending inter alia that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as no valid notice under Section 64 of the B.D.A. Act has been given to the Respondent by the complainant; that the Complainant has to prove that he was bitten by a stray dog and that it was rabid; that the B.D.A. provides all basic amenities in the layout under its charge till they are handed over to the City Corporation; that it is impossible for any civic body anywhere in the world to guarantee total absence of stray dogs and cases of dog bites in large cities; that there is no consumer dispute that could be entertained in this case by the Commission and that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.

4. CWs 1 to 4 have been examined and exhibits Cl to C10 have been produced on behalf of the Complainant. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the Respondent.

5. We heard the arguments of Smt. Gayatri Balu for the Complainant and Mr. P. Gopalakrishna for the Respondent.

6. From the arguments addressed, the first and the main point that arises for determination in this case is whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the sake of brevity. It is not disputed that the area, namely Rajmahal Vilas IInd Stage, was then within the jurisdiction of the BDA. From the notification the copy of which has been produced by the complainant, it is clear that the powers and functions of the Corporation or a standing Committee shall be exercised and discharged by the Bangalore Development Authority and the powers and the functions of the Commission under the Kamataka Municipal Corporation Act shall be exercised and discharged by the Commissioner of the BDA. From Schedule-2 of the Corporation Act, it is clear that the removal of nuisance is one of the duties to be performed by the Corporatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Tax paid by house owners to BDA is not consideration for the specific purpose of eradication of stray dogs and hence the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.

Cases Referred (1)