STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Appeal No.A/19/897 (Arising out of order dated 27/03/2019 passed by the D.F.Thane in CC/16/127)

Dr.Tolaram Gurdasmal Dharma Principal (Retired), Practicing Advocate

403, Sweet Home apartment, Near Civil Court, ...Appellant/org.complainant Ulhasnagar 421 003 Thane Versus Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation ………Respondent/org.O.P.

Ulhasnagar 421 003 BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade – President Vijay C.Premchandani – Member PRESENT: Appellant is present in person None present for respondent ORAL ORDER (Dt.09/10/2025)

Per Hon’ble Vijay C.Premchandani – Member

1. The appellant/original complainant has filed the present appeal against the order dated 27/03/2019 passed by the Learned District Consumer Commission, Thane in consumer complaint no.CC/16/127.

Factual matrix of the case:-

2. The appellant is the original complainant and respondent is the original opponent, herein after referred to as per their original status in the consumer complaint. The complainant had filed the consumer complaint contending that he owns two offices bearing nos.27 & 28, on the 2^nd floor in the building Maruti Shopping Complex, Section 17, Ulhasnagar 421 003. Those offices were purchased in the year 2000 and then he approached the Corporation, if any outstanding dues against these offices. The Corporation issued two invoices as outstanding dues against those offices amounting to Rs.11,727/- against each office. The amount was paid and the receipt is filed on record. The Corporation has never given break-up in detail, which cover the water charges, water benefit tax and other taxes levied. Thereafter, he has not received any invoice in spite of making representation to the Corporation i.e. original opponent. The Corporation never issued separate invoices for each office instead they pasted the Punchanama, notice and collective invoice of over Rs.15,00,000/-. The Corporation never moved with these representations. In the year 2010, the complainant personally met the officials and asked them to issue separate invoices for each office. Thereafter, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.5000/- for each office with the hope that they will do the needful. The receipts of the payment are exhibited in the main appeal. The complainant made several representations to the Corporation office but they have refused to issue the separate tax invoices for each office to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant had filed the original complaint before the Ld.District Consumer Commission, after issuing legal notice to the Corporation.

3. The consumer complaint was admitted and the ex-parte order was passed against the opponent as the opponent failed to appear and evidence of the complainant has been led and written notes of arguments have been filed. Thereafter, the Ld.District Consumer Commission, has rejected the original consumer complaint. Being aggrieved with the said order, the present appeal has been preferred by the original complainant on the following grounds.

Grounds of appeal:-

4. The appellant has contended in the appeal that the Corporation has not taken any action pursuant to the benefit of taxes and the water charges. It is further contended that the water charges levied to the complainant was not proper and the cumulative bill was issued to him. Therefore, the complainant is coming under the purview of definition of ‘Consumer’. The complainant has relied on the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Nagrik Parishad Pauri Garhwal v/s. Garhwal Jal Sansthan and others reported in 1986-99 Consumer 4379 (NS), wherein it is contended that as per the definition of ‘Consumer’ under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, if there is a dispute pertaining to the water charges, any person getting the benefit of any water supply or sewerage service from the local body, as the case may be, is a consumer as defined in Section 2