The judgment established the principle that services provided by the Municipal Council, for which residents are paying bills, are covered under the Consumer Protection Act, and upheld the importance of relying on the report of the Local Commissioner in cases of inadequate service provision.

ORDER

Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member - This is an appeal received by transfer from Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 12.12.2003 in complaint case No. 498 of 2003, Sant Ram v. Municipal Council, Ferozepur and Another.

2. Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has a municipal water tap, which was not giving proper water supply and on the advice of the OP, he installed Horse Power electric motor to improve the water supply for which the Complainant deposited the necessary fee with the OP and also spent substanial amount for installation of this motor in 1992-1993. However, even after the installation of the motor, supply of water did not improve and hence, through this complaint, the Complainant has prayed for a direction to the OP to provide water supply to his house and has also sought a compensation of Rs. 5,000 for mental agony and physical harassment.

3. The version of OP No. 1 is that water charges, surcharge, meter charge and water cess amounting to Rs. 2,941 is outstanding agains the Complainant w.e.f. 1.4.2001 to 30.9.2003 i.e. the time at which the complaint was instituted. It is further the case of OP that maintenance of the water supply is the duty of OP No. 2 i.e. SDO, Water Supply who is collecting water bills from the Complainant.

4. The learned District Forum to get the proper status of water supply being provided to the Complainant, appointed Sh. T. S. Kamboj, Advocate as Local Commissioner who after his checking, gave a checking report stating that water supply of the complainant's house is not adequate. In view of the report of Local Commissioner, the learned District Forum held that there was no need for any further investigation into the matter and accepting the complaint, it directed the OPs to arrange adequate water supply to the house of the Complainant and also directed them to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs. 2,000 as compensation for mental harassment along with another Rs. 500 quantified as costs of litigation. The order was directed to be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.

5. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned District Forum, OP No. 1 had been filed the present appeal before the Punjab State Commission and the same has now been transferred to this Commission under the orders of Hon'ble National Commission. Sh. Sandeep Khungar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Appellant/OP No. 1 whereas none appeared on behalf of the Respondents despite sufficient service and they were proceeded against ex parte.

6. The first submission of Sh. Sandeep Khungar, learned Counsel for the Appellant was that the Municipal Council, Ferozepur performs statutory functions and it is not covered under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and to support his contention, he cited the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of The Mayor, Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Tarapada Chatterjee and Others, 1994 (1) CPC 280, wherein it has been held that Municipal Committees while performing their statutory function such as maintenance of water works after receipt of taxes from the locals do not come under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. His next submission was that the Local Commissioner appointed by the learned District Forum went to the house of the Complainant in afternoon when the flow of water all over the area is low and the learned District Forum failed to get the check done at the time when the flow was proper. The next limb of his arguments was that the Complainant had not paid his bills properly and he was in arrears of payment of water bills amounting to Rs. 2,941 at the time of instituting the complaint as it had been clearly indicated in the order also that he had not paid water bills from 1.4.2001 onwards. Thus emphatically submitting that the compla