Mr. Justice A. Raman, President—Counsel for the respondents absent. Counsel for the appellant present. Heard the Counsel for the appellant. Since the matter lies in a narrow compass, it is needless to state elaborately the facts leading to the filing of the complaint.

2. The sum and substance of the complaint is thus: The appellant/opposite party which is a Panchayat Board, has committed deficiency in service by not supplying sufficient water to the complainant. The Panchayat Board collects water tax. They must be deemed to be doing service and inasmuch as there is deficiency in service, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act are attracted.

3. This contention of the complainants was accepted by the Lower Forum, which accordingly allowed the complaint and directed the Panchayat Board to provide adequate water supply to the complainants. It is not necessary to cite a gamut of rulings on this point. Suffice it is to refer to the decision rendered by the National Commission in the case of The Mayor, Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Tarapada Chatterjee and Others, I (1994) CPJ 99 (NC). Following the earlier decision reported in II (1994) CPJ 51, the National Commission has obs