The Mayor, Calcutta Municipal Corporation   ...  Appellant
Vs.
Tarapada Chatterjee & Others                     ...  Respondents

Before : Hon'ble Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi

      In this Revision Petitionn the Mayor, Calcutta Municipal Corporation has challenged the order dated February 11, 1993 passed by the State Commission, Calcutta confirming an order passed by the District Forum, Calcutta issuing a direction to the Municipal Corporation to take immediate steps for increasing pressure at which the water supply is being made to the premises of teh complainant and awarding to the complainant a compensation of Rs.5,000/-.

      After hearing the Cousel for the parties and going through records of teh 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 Act, 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 this statutory duty by the Corporation.

      In the order dated December 15, 1989 passed by this Commission in CONSUMER UNITY AND TRUST SOCIETY vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (F.A. No.2 of 1982) - (1991)- I.C.P.R.241, 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 ruling 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 disputes' that can be adjudicated upon under the Act.

      The impugned orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are hereby set aside and the complaint petition filed by the respondents before the District Forum is dismissed. Tha parties will bear their respective costs.

                                                                                            Top