The payment of property tax to a municipal body does not constitute 'consideration' for services rendered, and therefore, a taxpayer does not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act to maintain a complaint against the municipal authority for deficiencies in civic amenities.

VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :

1. Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, has filed the present Appeal through its Assistant Commissioner to challenge the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent No.1/Complainant-Surinder Kumar had been disposed off.

2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent No.1/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that OP No.2 had developed the residential colony, namely, R.B. Estate and had sold the plots to different buyers. The Complainant was one such buyers. The Complainant has constructed the House and had paid all the charges to the OP No.1 for providing all Civil Amenities including the regular electricity, sewerage system, street lights, roads etc. OP No.1 had failed to provide proper roads as the same were broken at many points, big potholes causing threat to life of the passerby. Street lights were also not in working condition and the entire area & roads were in deep dark during the night time. Garbage had not been lifted properly and sewerage was overflowing. Sewerage waste material was being scattered in the open place, which had caused health hazards and stink in the air. It was averred that the Complainant had approached OPs No.1&2 on number of occasions for the maintenance of civic amenities as promised. The Complainant had paid consideration to OP No.1 in the form of Property Tax and other charges, which they had received for providing the basic amenities. Neither OP No.1 nor OP No.2 had provided the basic amenities in the area and the Complainant’s family and other residents had not been provided with the proper roads, sanitation, sewerage system, street lighting etc.

4. Stating the act of the opposite parties to be a case of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’, it was prayed in the Complaint that the OPs be directed to provide the proper civic amenities in the form of clean roads, clean sewerage system, proper street lights, proper lifting of garbage etc. in the Colony. OPs be also directed to pay Rs.5 lakh as compensation to the Complainant for suffering inconvenience and harassment at the hands of the OPs.

5. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, none has appeared before the District Commission on behalf of OP No. 2, hence, OP No. 2 was proceeded ex-parte. The Appellant/OP No.1 had filed its written statement raising certain preliminary objections to the extent that the Complaint was not maintainable. The Complainant was not a ‘Consumer’ of this OP nor the dispute was falling within the category of ‘Consumer’ dispute. The Complainant had concealed certain material facts from the District Commission and had approached the District Commission with unclean hands. It was prayed that the Complaint being not maintainable against OP No.1, be dismissed.

6. After considering the contents of the Complaint and the reply thereof filed by the Opposite Party No.1 as well as on hearing the oral arguments raised on behalf of both the sides, the Complaint filed by the Complainant was disposed off vide order dated 05.08.2024 by the District Commission by issuing following directions to the OPs:-

“Opposite parties are directed to provide basic a