STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTAR PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/9/A/579/2017 Mahaprabandhak Jal Sansthan PRESENT ADDRESS - Agra ,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus Smt. Meena Devi PRESENT ADDRESS - Agra ,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. VIKAS SAXENA , JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mahaprabandhak Jal Sansthan FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Smt. Meena Devi DATED: 06/03/2025

ORDER

Reserved State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 579 of 2017 Mahaprabandhak, Jal Sansthan, Agra. ...Appellant.

Versus Smt. Meena Devi w/o Shri Basant Lal, R/o E-146/6, Prem Market, Kamla Nagar, P.S. New Agra, District Agra. ...Respondent Before:

1- Hon’ble Mr. Vikas Saxena, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Mrs. Sudha Upadhyay, Member.

For the Appellant : Sri S.B. Srivastava, Advocate.

For the Respondent : None.

Dated : 6.3.2025

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Vikas Saxena, Member: This appeal has been filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 25.6.2016 passed by the District Forum-I, Agra in complaint case no.396 of 2012, Smt. Meena Devi vs. Mahaprabhandhak, Jal Sansthan, by which all the bills sent to complainant were cancelled and awarded towards mental and physical harassment Rs.5,000.00 and cost Rs.5,000/-.

The complainant has stated that she is running one beauty parlour and a coaching centre in the premises where the water connection in question has been installed. This water connection is used as a common facility and therefore this connection cannot be said to be a commercial connection. This is also stated in the complaint that the disputed bill and demand has been raised by the opposite party/appellant in the name of husband of the compliment which has no concerned with the in question. Per Contra, the appellant opposite party has submitted in para (I) of the Memorandum of appeal that the dispute between the parties cannot be termed as a “consumer dispute” for the reason that the taxes payable with water charges is not a “consideration” as contemplated in consumer protection act. Ends the complaint is non maintainable and should have been dismissed.

This has also been argued on behalf of the appellant the tax and charges collected by the appellant Jal Sansthan is a statutory function and not a consideration taken in lieu of any service provided by them, and the Sansthan cannot be said to be a “service provider” and the complainant cannot be taken as a consumer under Consumer Protection Act.

We have heard ld. counsel for the appellant Sri S.B. Srivastava. None appeared for the respondent. We have perused the record.

This is a settled proposition that all statutory duties do not enjoy immunity from jurisdiction of consumer Courts and the duties performed which are commercial in nature and generate profit are not immune from Consumer Protection Act and come within the definition of ‘service’ as defined in that Act. This was considered in the judgement of Honourable Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta, 1994 AIR P 787 in the following manner:-

4. What is the meaning of the word ‘service’? Does it extend to deficiency in the building of a house or flat? Can a complaint be filed under the Act against the statutory authority or a builder or contractor for any deficiency in respect of such property. The answer to all this shall depend on understanding of the word ’service’. The term has variety of meanings. It may mean any benefit or any act resulting in promoting interest or happiness. It may be contractual, professional, public, domestic, legal, statutory etc. The concept of service thus is very wide. How it should be understood and what it means depends on the context in which it has been used in an enactment. Clause (o) of the definition Section defines it as under:

“service’ means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection