Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President — The appeal arises out of the order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Thanjavur dated 26.5.92 in O.P. 119/92. The opposite party is the appellant.

2. This complaint has been filed by the Consumer Protection Council of Mannargudi on behalf of one Kalyanasundaram. The said Kalyanasundaram has built up a row of houses bearing Door Nos. 19/1 to 19/8 and he has been assessed house tax. The allegation is that the drainage water is stored in a dump in the ground and it is removed by the Municipal people. They have failed to do so as a result of which it is causing health hazard. This amounts to deficiency of service.

3. The opposite party did not enter appearance.

4. The District Forum found that there was deficiency of service and directed the opposite party/appellant to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 300/-. It is this order chat is challenged in the appeal.

5. The main contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in the matter of removal of drainage water, the Municipality is not performing any service for consideration and neither the complainant nor the house owner Mr. Kalyanasundaram is a consumer within the meaning of the Act. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision of this Commission in Salem Nagara Mahendrapuri Kudiyuruppor Sangam v. The Executive Officer, Kannankurichi Selection Panchayat (1991 (1) MWN (CP) 21). It has been pointed out by this Commission that there is an essential distinction between the consideration for hire be it call as fee, charge or rent and the payment of tax; the former is a voluntary payment and it is open to a person to make the payment and hire service or refuse to pay and forego the service. In the case of the latter, it is a levy or imposition made by the Government or the Panchayat under the Panchayat Act and there is no element of voluntariness in the payment of tax, for no tax payer has the option to refuse to pay the tax legally imposed on him. The house tax collected by the appellant/opposite party in respect of these houses of Mr. Kalyanasundaram is a tax and not a fee for any service rendered by the Municipality in the matter of laying and maintenance of road, water supply and drainage facilities. The complainant cannot, therefore, be held to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and the complaint is not maintainable. The District Forum has not considered this aspect of the matter and has erred into the conclusion that the complainant is a consumer.

6. In the result the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint fails and is dismissed but without costs.

Appeal allowed.

–