Consumer rights
Civic bodies to pay for neglect

Pushpa Girimaji says the apex consumer court has been taking nagarpalikas to task for their inefficiency and abuse of power

HERE is a clear message from the apex consumer court to civic bodies around the country: clean up your act, be civil and change your attitude towards consumers or else you will pay a heavy price for it. And in order to show that this is not an empty threat, the apex consumer court has asked a civic body to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 each to two consumers. And while calculating the amount, the apex consumer court has taken into account not just the deficient service rendered by the civic body, but also "the malafide exercise of power" by officers of the municipality.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order of September 6 deals with two separate cases, but both filed against the Nagarpalika Parishad, Haldwani, Nainital district. While one pertains to the civic authority’s failure to clean up the septic tank at a consumer’s residence, the other deals with the Nagarpalika’s failure to give a consumer a copy of the building taxassessment.

Coming down heavily on the Nagarpalika, the court said, "If this is tolerated, crime and corruption would thrive and prosper in society due to lack of public resistance". It also appreciated the consumers for "knocking at the doors of the consumer court, instead of feeling helpless against the arbitrary action of the civic authorities".

In the case of Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal vs Nagar Paliaka Parishad, Haldwani, (RP no 2775 of 2004), the dispute was quite simple. Even though the civic authority was duty bound to clean up the septic tank in his house, this was not done even though he made out an application for the same and paid the required fee of Rs 200. And when reminded, the officers treated him with contempt. Eventually, as the tank began to overflow and started emitting foul smell, he had to call some other cleaning agency for the job and incur an expense of Rs 1050.

The District Forum asked the Nagarpalika to refund Rs 200 collected as fee and also pay the consumer Rs 1050 that he had spent on getting the septic tank cleaned. In addition, it awarded Rs 1000 as compensation and Rs 1,250 as costs of litigation. The State Commission, however, set aside this order and asked the Nagarpalika to only return the fee of Rs 200 and pay Rs 500 towards compensation.

While disagreeing with this, the apex court said it was not just a case of deficient service, "it was also a case of harassment of a common man who cannot match the might of the state instrumentalities." It, therefore, set aside the order the State Commission and directed the Nagarpalika to pay in all Rs 10,000 to the consumer.

The second case (RP NO 2774 of 2004) filed by Smt Usha Rani aggarwal, pertains to the building tax. Here the consumer paid Rs 10 as required and filed an application for a copy of the assessment order dated 21-8-2000 with regard to the newly constructed portion of the building. Despite repeated requests, the assessment order was not given, giving rise to the complaint before the consumer court.

In this case, too, the District Forum held that the Tax Department had acted arbitrarily and with an "oblique motive" and was required to compensate the consumer. This order was however set aside by the State Commission.

Disagreeing with the State Commission, the apex court pointed out that issuing the assessment order was a statutory duty prescribed under the law. And failure to give it constituted deficiency in service and malafide exercise of power by officers of the Nagarpalika. In this case, too, it asked the Nagarpalika to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000.

Since the Consumer Protection Act excludes from the purview of the courts, services rendered free of charge, the civic authorities have for long managed to escape liability for the negligent services rendered by them. In order to rectify this, the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs tried to bring in civic services under the ambit of the consumer courts the last time it amended the Consumer Protection Act, but without much success. It is making yet another effort this time round in the fresh amendments being drawn up by it.

Meanwhile, the apex court has already begun the process of taking the civic bodies to task for their inefficiency and abuse of power. And making them pay for their actions. Of course in both these cases, the court’s job was made easier by the fact that the consumers had paid for the services.