Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member

          Heard Adv. Birendra Kumar for the Complainant.  Perused the papers.

[2]     This is a consumer complaint against Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in respect of charging water-bills, which are always levied as per the rules & regulations governing the issue.  It is not a case of levying/charging the bills, which is based on the meter reading or actual consumption, not according to the charges fixed as per the governing rules.  Some complaint, in a vague manner, is made to say that the meter-reader did not visit to record the reading.  In such circumstances, correct meter reading could have been supplied.  There is no material to show as to how the bills are exorbitant.  It is pertinent to note that the Complainant Society also sought information (technical data) under the Right to Information Act per application dated 20/4/2010 and reply to it dated 20/5/2010 is on record.  It also does not reflect anything to show that the billing was done arbitrarily and not as per the rules.  The Municipal Corporation also by its letter dated 5/2/2010 explained to the Complainant Society of their charging of water bills.  In the circumstances, it cannot be a ‘consumer dispute’ as contemplated under Section-2(1)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  If, it is a dispute of improperly charging the water-bills then, that is a subject matter of civil remedy available elsewhere but, certainly, it is not a ‘consumer dispute’ since while charging the water-bills as per the rules, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai was discharging its statutory functions.

[3]     Apart from that, even for the sake of argument it is assumed to be a ‘consumer dispute; in that case it is the Bombay Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (‘B.M.C.’ in short) would be a ‘service provider’ which is a separate and distinct juridic person as per provisions of Section-2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’, for brevity).  The consumer complaint is not addressed against it (i.e. B.M.C.) but against its officials, namely Municipal Commissioner and others.  They are also not named.  No allegations of either colourable exercise of powers or oppression or capricious or arbitrariness in action or negligence of any kind or misfeasance in public office are leveled against them.  In fact, no personal allegations against any one of these officials (by name) are made.  Therefore, considering ratio decidendi of apex court decided in the matters of Lucknow Development Authority Vs.  M. K. Gupta ~ (1994)-1-SCC-243; and Gaziabad Development Authority Vs.  Balbir Singh ~ (2004)-5-SCC-65; no consumer complaint could be tenable against these officials.  Therefore, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

ORDER

Complaint is not admitted and stands rejected in limine.  No order as to costs.

Pronounced & dictated on 04^th October, 2011