|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do civic authorities come under the jurisdiction of the consumer court? Can one file a complaint against them for deficient service?
In the initial years, consumers argued that even the civic services, rendered without any specific charge, should come under the purview of the consumer courts as the expenses for these services are met by the taxes paid by consumers. However, this was turned down by the apex consumer court. In fact, in Indian Medical Association Vs V. P. Shantha and others (CA No 688 of 1993) the Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between the payment of tax and the payment for a service and said they cannot be equated. Said the Supreme court: "The essential characteristics of a tax are that it is imposed under statutory power without the taxpayer's consent and the payment is enforced by law; it is an imposition made for public purpose without reference to any specific benefit to be conferred on the payer of the tax and it is part of the common burden, the quantum of imposition upon the taxpayer depends generally upon the capacity to pay". Thus it cannot be considered as payment or consideration for any particular service, the court said. The municipal corporation is not lifting the garbage from our housing complex despite repeated complaints. Can the residents file a complaint before the consumer court seeking compensation for the suffering caused as a result, particularly the spread of diseases like cholera and typhoid on account of the garbage dump piling up in the colony? If you are paying for the service of clearing the garbage from your housing complex, you can seek compensation through the consumer court for the deficient service. In Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal vs Nagar Paliaka Parishad, Haldwani, (RP no 2775 of 2004), the apex consumer court directed the nagarpalika to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 to the consumer for its failure to clean the septic tank in the consumer's house. The civic authority had the responsibility of cleaning the septic tank and as required under the law, the consumer had submitted an application and even paid the required fee of Rs 200. Yet, despite reminders, the civic body did not get the work done and the officials even insulted the consumer when he went to remind them. Finally when the tank began to overflow and started emitting a foul smell, the consumer was forced to engage a private cleaning agency for the job and spend Rs 1,050. Observing that this was not only a case of deficient service, but "also a case of harassment of a common man who cannot match the might of the state instrumentalities.", the apex consumer court applauded the consumer for "knocking at the doors of the consumer court, instead of feeling helpless against the arbitrary action of the civic authorities" However for this verdict, the consumer had to fight a long legal battle from 2001 to 2006. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum before which he first filed the complaint in 2001, asked the nagarpalika to refund the fee of Rs 200 paid by the consumer, in addition to Rs 1050 spent by him on a private cleaning agency. In addition, it awarded Rs 1000 as compensation and Rs 1250 as litigation costs. The nagarpalika,
however, was unwilling to accept this verdict and filed an appeal
before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which set
aside the order of the District Forum and directed the municipal body
to refund Rs 200 and pay only Rs 500 as compensation. So the consumer
was forced to file a revision petition before the National Commission
in 2004, resulting in its awarding a consolidated amount of Rs 10,000
in 2006.
|
||
|
|
||
If
the service is free of charge, then you do not have recourse to the
consumer court for redress of your grievance. However, if you are
paying for that service, then you have every right to sue the service
provider for deficient or negligent service.