Consumer Education & Research Society & Ors. Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 6740-6741 of 2001
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 10577-10578 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 10577-10578 of 1999)
Petitioner: Consumer Education & Research Society & Ors.
Respondent: Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 6740-6741 of 2001
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 10577-10578 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 10577-10578 of 1999)
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 20, 2001
Head Note:
CONSUMER PROTECTION
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Section 2 – “Consumer” – “Service” – Petition by a registered association against municipal corporation – In a similar earlier petition by same association, directions issued by national commission without deciding preliminary objection of maintainability etc. – Subsequent petition filed pursuant to directions dismissed in limine. Held that questions regarding association being “consumer” and “deficiency in service” can be decided on proper enquiry, which depends upon maintainability of petition. Hence, appeal allowed and matter remanded. Parties given liberty to raise all objections available. (Paras 7, 8, 10)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The Consumer Education and Research Society of Ahmedabad which is stated to be a voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 functioning at Ahmedabad and three other persons have filed these appeals assailing the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “National Commission”) in original petition nos. 125-126 of 1994 dismissing the original petitions in limine. The order reads as follows :
“We are of the view that these are not cases of consumer dispute but are in the nature of public interest litigation. These original petitions are dismissed.”
3. The main thrust of the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that on the facts and circumstances of the cases, the National Commission erred in dismissing the original petition without giving any reason and without discussing the case of the parties. Elucidating the contention, the learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the order passed by the National Commission in original petition no. 26/89 which was filed by this very society, appellant no. 1 herein, and some others against the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, respondent no. 1 herein and some other, relating to the deficiency in supply of drinking water to the residents of the city. The National Commission in its order dated 6.4.1990 made certain observation and issued certain instructions to be carried out by the municipal corporation to prevent water borne diseases before onset of monsoon. In the said order, it was stated that the National Commission heard the advocate general appearing for the State of Gujarat. In the concluding portion of the order, the National Commission observed :
“In the event of there being a failure on the part of the corporation to duly carry out the said assurances, it will be open to the first petitioner society or any other interested consumer association to bring the matters before us for appropriate orders.”
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the corporation having failed to carry out its assurances and the directions in the aforementioned order of the National Commission, the appellants filed the present complaint. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the National Commission should not have dismissed the original petitions in limine.
5. Mr. G.L. Sanghi learned senior counsel for the respondent corporation on the other hand contended that neither the appellants are consumers, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act nor supply of water by the corporation is a ‘service’ as defined under the Act. He also contended that ‘service’ if any being provided by the corporation in this regard, is not on payment by the residents of the city and therefore, they are also not consumers.
6. The question arising for consideration relates to the validity or otherwise of the order dismissing the original petitions filed by the appellants. It is their case that these complaints have been filed in pursuance of the order passed by the National Commission on the previous occasion granting them liberty to approach the National Commission on the failure of the corporation to carry out its assurances.
7. The National Commission on the previous occasion taking note of certain preliminary objections, raised before it, did not feel inclined to determine the same and proceeded to consider the matter on merits and disposed of the original petitions in the manner noted earlier.
8. Whether the complainants- appellants herein, are ‘consumers’ and whether the complaint filed relates to deficiency in ‘service’ as defined in the Act are matters for determination of which enquiry into facts is necessary and on the determination of the same, depends the maintainability of the original petitions filed before the National Commission.
9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the National Commission was not right in dismissing the complaints in limine. Therefore, the appeals are allowed, the order dated 25.2.1999 in original petition nos. 125-126/1994 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the National Commission for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties to place further material in support of their respective cases.
10. It will be open to the parties to raise such contentions as are available in law including the maintainability of the complaint. We make it clear that we have not entered into the merits of the case. We also make it clear that this order is being passed on the facts and circumstances of the case and we do not intend to lay down any general proposition of law relating to maintainability or otherwise of such complaints.
11. There will be no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Consumer Education and Research Society of Ahmedabad which is stated to be a voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 functioning at Ahmedabad and three other persons have filed these appeals assailing the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “National Commission”) in original petition nos. 125-126 of 1994 dismissing the original petitions in limine. The order reads as follows :
“We are of the view that these are not cases of consumer dispute but are in the nature of public interest litigation. These original petitions are dismissed.”
3. The main thrust of the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that on the facts and circumstances of the cases, the National Commission erred in dismissing the original petition without giving any reason and without discussing the case of the parties. Elucidating the contention, the learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the order passed by the National Commission in original petition no. 26/89 which was filed by this very society, appellant no. 1 herein, and some others against the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, respondent no. 1 herein and some other, relating to the deficiency in supply of drinking water to the residents of the city. The National Commission in its order dated 6.4.1990 made certain observation and issued certain instructions to be carried out by the municipal corporation to prevent water borne diseases before onset of monsoon. In the said order, it was stated that the National Commission heard the advocate general appearing for the State of Gujarat. In the concluding portion of the order, the National Commission observed :
“In the event of there being a failure on the part of the corporation to duly carry out the said assurances, it will be open to the first petitioner society or any other interested consumer association to bring the matters before us for appropriate orders.”
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the corporation having failed to carry out its assurances and the directions in the aforementioned order of the National Commission, the appellants filed the present complaint. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the National Commission should not have dismissed the original petitions in limine.
5. Mr. G.L. Sanghi learned senior counsel for the respondent corporation on the other hand contended that neither the appellants are consumers, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act nor supply of water by the corporation is a ‘service’ as defined under the Act. He also contended that ‘service’ if any being provided by the corporation in this regard, is not on payment by the residents of the city and therefore, they are also not consumers.
6. The question arising for consideration relates to the validity or otherwise of the order dismissing the original petitions filed by the appellants. It is their case that these complaints have been filed in pursuance of the order passed by the National Commission on the previous occasion granting them liberty to approach the National Commission on the failure of the corporation to carry out its assurances.
7. The National Commission on the previous occasion taking note of certain preliminary objections, raised before it, did not feel inclined to determine the same and proceeded to consider the matter on merits and disposed of the original petitions in the manner noted earlier.
8. Whether the complainants- appellants herein, are ‘consumers’ and whether the complaint filed relates to deficiency in ‘service’ as defined in the Act are matters for determination of which enquiry into facts is necessary and on the determination of the same, depends the maintainability of the original petitions filed before the National Commission.
9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the National Commission was not right in dismissing the complaints in limine. Therefore, the appeals are allowed, the order dated 25.2.1999 in original petition nos. 125-126/1994 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the National Commission for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties to place further material in support of their respective cases.
10. It will be open to the parties to raise such contentions as are available in law including the maintainability of the complaint. We make it clear that we have not entered into the merits of the case. We also make it clear that this order is being passed on the facts and circumstances of the case and we do not intend to lay down any general proposition of law relating to maintainability or otherwise of such complaints.
11. There will be no order as to costs.
