- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the majority Bench of the District Forum, Dehra Dun dated 21.12.1993 whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed.
(2.) THE complainant has filed the complaint before the learned Forum with the allegations that the complainant was served with a notice dated 3.2.1992 to deposit a sum of Rs. 864/ - on account of sewer tax. He was threatened of severe consequences. He was given only two days time to deposit the amount. He was denied of an opportunity to make any representation against the levy of sewer tax. He filed the complaint alleging that he is not bound to pay tax.
(3.) AFTER taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them, the President of the learned Forum decided that this was not a consumer dispute, whereas two members held that the complainant is consumer and ordered to cancel the demand notice of Rs. 864/ - and further directed the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default of payment by 22.1.1994 to pay interest @ 15%. It was further ordered that the General Manager, Garhwal Jal Sansthan shall conduct an inquiry in the case and take departmental action against the official for not sending the bill of sewerage tax to the complainant annually, against which order the present appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The finding that since under Section 64(2) of the Act, there is a provision that if there is non -payment by the consumer, the Jal Sansthan has a power to cut off the connection and thus according to the opinion of the learned Forum since there is use of word "Consumer" under the Act, therefore, the complainant is a consumer. We should not forget that every body in these days is said to be a consumer. But under our Act, i.e., Consumer Protection Act, only a person who pays any consideration and purchase any goods or hires any service for consideration is a consumer. Liability to pay tax is a statutory duty. The authorities levy tax under third statutory powers. We do not pay any consideration while we pay any tax. Tax is not the charge as consideration for anything. You may use sewer or not but you have to pay the tax. You may use the road or not but you have to pay the road tax. Nobody can say that I have constructed my house from my own money, the municipal authorities or the Government has nothing to do with it, therefore, I shall not pay house tax or other taxes, which are liable to be paid. Therefore, merely because the word "Consumer" has been used in the Act, it cannot be said that the complainant is a consumer. It was further argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant that it was his case that this is not tax but this is price of the user of the sewer. The complainant may or may not use the sewer but he has to pay the tax under the Act. If some charges and price is charged, then alone the complainant can be a consumer. We are supported by the ruling reported in , The Mayor, Calcutta Municipal Corporation V. Tarapada Chatterjee and Others, 1994 1 CPJ 99wherein it has been held: "After hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case it has become clear that the complainant is paying only "property tax" to the Corporation, the levy of which is based on the annual value determined as per the provisions of Section 174 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation 1980. The construction and maintenance of the water works and providing means for supply of water for public and private purposes is specified in Section 29 of the said Act as one of the obligatory statutory functions of the Corporation and it is only in the discharge of the said statutory duty that the Corporation is maintaining the system of water supply to the respondents within the Municipal limits. The complainant is getting the water supply to his premises only by virtue of the performance of the statutory duty by the Corporation." In para 3 of this ruling, it has been held: "In the order dated December 15, 1989 passed by this Commission in Consumer Unity and Trust Society V. The State of Rajasthan and Others, 1991 2 CPJ 56, the question whether the payment of a tax can constitute payment of "consideration" for the "hiring" or "availing of" service "for consideration" has been discussed in detail and after referring to the rulings given on the point by the Supreme Court of India it was held that payment of tax to Government which goes into the consolidated fund of the Union of India or State cannot constitute a payment of "consideration" for the "hiring" or "availing of" a service. In the light of the principles laid down in the said decision, it is manifest that the contrary conclusion recorded by the State Commission and the District Forum is incorrect and they have acted illegally and without jurisdiction in holding that the dispute raised by the complainant about the inadequacy of pressure in the water supply system is a "consumer dispute" that can be adjudicated upon under the Act." The same preposition of law has been pronounced in the ruling reported in , President, Panchayat Board, Ilanchi and Another v. Arunachalam and Another., 2004 2 CPJ 183The Hon ble Allahabad High Court also in a case reported in , M/s.Model Tannery V. State of U.P. and Another,1991 1 AllLR 227has held that levy of water tax by Jal Sansthan is perfectly valid. It is not a fee. Not required to be supported by any specific service rendered to an individual. The Karnataka State Commission in the ruling reported in , Sri A. Srinivasa Murthy V. Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority, 1991 1 CPJ 657has specifically held: "There is no quid pro quo between the tax paid and the general duty of the BDA. Hence, we see no force in the contention of Smt. Gayatri Balu tax paid by a resident of the locality is a consideration for the services to be rendered by the BDA. Hence it cannot be said that the complainant by paying house tax which includes healthness has hired the services of the BDA for consideration for the purpose of removing the menace of stray dogs. The result is that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and on that score alone his complaint has to be dismissed." In Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras V. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005, the Supreme Court was pleased to hold that a tax is a compulsory extraction of money by public authority for public purpose enforceable by law and is not payment for service rendered. The Madhya Pradesh State Commission has also held in the ruling reported in , Hajarimal Munat Sanrakshan Tapka Vaste V. Nagar Palika Nigam Jalkar Vibhag, 2000 2 CPJ 558that water supply is statutory duty of Corporation. Availing water supply on payment of tax does not mean hiring of services. Similar other rulings have been given by various State Commissions. In Pavitar Singh V. State of Punjab, 1994 1 CPJ 397, it has been held that payment of tax is not a payment for consideration for service.;