State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Balbir Singh Sondh vs Mc Shimla on 18 May, 2007
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA Appeal No. 75/2005. Date of Decision 18.05.2007. Sh. Balbir Singh Sondh S/o late Sh. Dewan Singh Sondh R/o Charan Village Building, Dhingu Mata Mandir Road Sanjauli, Shimla 171 006, H.P. . Appellant. Versus Municipal Corporation Shimla through the Secretary (Tax Department) Shimla 171 001, H.P. . Respondent. Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President. Honble Mr. Narinder Singh Thakur, Member.
Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.
Whether Approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Appellant. Mr. Giri Raj Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral) Admitted facts giving rise to this case are that, appellant is the owner of building known as Charan Villa, situated on the Dhingoo Mata Mandir Road, Sanjauli, Shimla-6. He is running Karyana shop on the 3rd floor of this building for the last 8/10 years. As per averment in the complaint which was filed on 31.3.2003, no sewerage facility had been provided to his building by the respondent Corporation and he has been highlighting this fact from time to time to the Municipal Authorities.
2. It is admitted case of the parties that a sum of Rs. 803/- per annum had regularly been charged from the appellant since the year 2000 to 2005. It is also admitted that the appellant had deposited sewerage tax for the year 2006, and was in fact in 2006 itself provided sewerage connection to him by the respondent.
3. In the aforesaid background on 31.3.2003 he filed a complaint on the ground that without providing any sewerage connection respondent is charging sewerage tax which is illegal and arbitrary, because no service is being provided for, then why this amount was charged from the appellant between the years 2000 to 2005 (both years included). Non providing of service during this period could not be disputed by Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the respondent. Though he urged that in terms of HP Govt. Notification No. LSG-D(1)-9/94, dated 29.3.2000 issued by the Department of Urban Development, his client is legally authorized to charge the sewerage tax, therefore, his client was well advised to have recovered the amount in question service or no service.
4. After having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that there was either no benefit and or any sewerage service worth the name was provided to the premises of the appellant. At this stage, Mr. Arora persisted with vehemence that in order to run a commercial establishment like the one of the appellant, respondent Corporation is authorized in law to charge the sewerage tax on the basis of aforesaid HP Govt. notification issued by its Urban Development Department. If the submission of Mr. Arora is taken to its logical end, we are sorry to say that the consequence will be disastrous. Because Corporation may or may not provide any service as a service provider to a consumer like appellant is left to its will, whim and fancy. Such can neither be intention of any legislation, muchless of the notification relied upon by Mr. Arora on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, submission of Mr. Arora had been noted simply to be rejected being without merit. Ordered accordingly.
5. Faced with this situation Mr. Arora urged that the sewerage tax is being charged by his client to maintain the civic amenities. So far so good. Question arises as to what was the sewerage service being provided by the appellant during 2000 to 2005, learned counsel for the Corporation had no answer, except for reiterating that his client is empowered by the government to recover the sewerage tax as noted hereinabove. This plea is thoroughly fallacious without any basis.
6. We are sorry to observe that District Forum below has dismissed the complaint solely on the ground that the appellant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as such the dispute cannot be termed as a consumer dispute, therefore, complaint was not maintainable.
7. We may notice in this behalf that appellant has not challenged the notification in question. His grievance was that as a service provider respondent charges Rs. 803/- as sewerage tax every year without providing sewerage connection and in this behalf pleadings of the parties particularly para 3 of the complaint and its reply assume significance. For ready reference both are reproduced as under-
3. that no sewerage facility has been provided to my building by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, as it would be seen from my letter dated 26.7.2002 (Annexure A&D), although other buildings which are situated nearby are availing this facility.
3. That in reply to this para of the complaint it is submitted that at present there is no sewerage line of Municipal Corporation Shimla in and around Charan Villa Building Dhingoo Mata Mandir Road, Sanjauli, therefore, the building of the applicant has not been connected with the sewerage line till so far.
(emphasis supplied)
7. In the face of this factual position, there is no sewerage line of the Corporation at present in and around Charan Villa building situated at Dhingoo Mata Mandir Road, Sanjauli, Shimla-6 therefore, the building of the applicant (appellant) before us in this appeal, had not been connected with the sewerage line till so far. This reply was filed on 8.9.2003. This is an additional ground to negative the submissions of Mr. Arora learned counsel for the respondent.
8. No other point is urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion while partly allowing this appeal it is ordered that the appellant is not liable to pay the sewerage tax to the Municipal Corporation in the light of the admitted position extracted hereinabove from the year 2000 to 2005 i.e. for six years @ Rs. 803/- per year i.e. Rs. 4818/-in all. Ordered accordingly. It is further ordered that the appellant is entitled to the refund of Rs. 4818/- with 6% per annum interest on it, from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 31.3.2003 till the date of payment/deposit whichever is earlier. It is made clear that in case amount is not paid/tendered by means of a bankers cheque payable at Sanjauli branch of a Nationalized bank, on or before 31.7.2007 interest payable shall be 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Office will make available a copy of this order to the parties free of costs as per rules.
Shimla.
18th May, 2007. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.
President.
(Narinder Singh Thakur), Member.
(Saroj Sharma), Karan* Member.