Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/15/2015

SRI SUNIL RAJKHOWA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. - Opp.Party(s)

VIJAY PANDEY

10 Jan 2018

ORDER

Both the parties are represented by learned counsels. This case was fixed for hearing since 29.09.15 and both the parties filed several petitions for adjournment which were allowed. But subsequently parties are represented by learned counsels without making any hearing. This is a long pending case for hearing and last opportunity was given to the parties for hearing. Today while the case was raised the OP made hearing whereas, learned counsel for the complainant was not found. Hence, order is passed after hearing OP.

                  

                                       The fact of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a very active social worker and contested for Assembly Election from Moran Constituency for which he has to move from Dibrugarh to Moran Constituency frequently. Whereas, road condition of National Highway No.37 from Borboruah to Sivasagar is so poor and bad condition that one cannot move by vehicle. On 08.06.15 while the complainant was going to Moran by his vehicle near Khowang due to bad and poor road condition complainant’s car got damaged for which he had to call a mechanic from Khowang. Said mechanic informed him that car suspension and bushing got damaged due to falling on the big hole in bad road condition. However, the complainant towed the vehicle to Dibrugarh by pulling with the help of another vehicle. The complainant also suffered body pain, back pain and spinal cord pain for which he had to visit the doctors who advised him to take rest. The complainant thereafter visited to the Office of the OP No-2 and demanded compensation for the damage of the vehicle and for getting body pain, back pain and spinal cord pain. As he did not get any relief from the OP No.2 he filed the present case.

                            

                                      The complainant submitted that National Highway No.37 is a very important road whereas, the road condition is poor and bad due to non-maintenance of the OPs. OPs are duty bound to take care of the road and to maintain the same regularly as a National property for the welfare of the common public.  Travellers by the said road suffer inconvenience due to poor road quality and non-maintenance. The OPs deals with development and maintenance of the National Highway in the country with the financial support of the Central and State Government. The complainant is a bonafide tax payer and contribute his contribution to the country in the form of tax for which he is a consumer under provision of the Consumer Protection Act. As the OPs failed to maintain the road condition properly they are negligent in duty and thereby they have committed deficiency in service.

 

                             The OP on the other hand, submitted that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as prayed for for poor quality of road condition as because question of deficiency in service does not arise, the complainant being a tax payer. The collection of tax by the State Government is not a consideration for any service rendered or to be rendered by the State to the tax payer. There is no nexus between the tax and the service rendered by the State. The tax is a compulsory exaction of money by public authority for public purpose enforceable by law and is not payment for service rendered. Tax is imposed for the public welfare but not supported by any consideration of service rendered in return. The complainant neither bought any goods nor hired or availed any service for consideration from the OPs. as such, the complainant is not a consumer as per provision of Consumer Protection Act.

                            

Considering the submission made by the learned counsels for both the parties it is admitted that collection of tax by the State is not a consideration for any service rendered or to be rendered  by the State to the tax payer. There is no nexus between the tax payer and the service rendered by the State. Any complaint about levy of tax does not make the assessee a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The definition of a tax given by Latham, CJ in the case of Mathews (1)- A tax is a compulsory exaction of money by public authority for public purpose as enforceable by law and is not payment for service rendered.” The tax is imposed for public purpose and is not supported by  any consideration of service rendered in return. Broadly speaking, the taxing power is exercise for the purpose of raising revenue and is subject to certain designated constitutional limitation. A tax, in its true nature, is a levy made by the State for the general purposes of the Government and it cannot be regarded as payment for any particular or special service such as maintenance of road etc. Admittedly the Government is welfare State is under a duty to provided various forms of facilities to the citizens and the expenditure incurred thereon will have to be met from out of the consolidated funds of the State, it cannot be said that tax levied for a general purpose of the State continues ‘consideration’ for any specific facility, benefit or service provided by the State. Tax paid by the complainant does not mean the consideration for rendering service by maintaining the roads. On the fact of it, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer vis a vis the OPs for not maintaining the National Highway No.37 which does not constitute any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As such, no question of deficiency in service can arise so as to entitle the complainant to invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. Hence, the case is liable to be dismissed.

This Forum holed that the case is dismissed for absence of jurisdiction.