ORDER ON ADMISSION

MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

        The Appellant/Complainant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 30.03.2024 passed in CC.No.47/2023 by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Udupi.

        2.     Perused the certified copy of the order memorandum of appeal.  The complainant alleges that the service road was not formed scientifically for which the complainant’s son died due to the negligence of Opposite Party in discharging statutory duty.  The respondent authority entrusted the work of expansion of National Highway 66 and accordingly, the OP-1 also authorized the OP-5 to form service road wherever is necessary, but the said OP-5 has neglected the work and permitted the public to use the said road without inspection and no wall was put up to avoid any accident.  Due to which the accident was occurred and the son of the complainant died hence, he claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs.49,00,000/- under the allegation of deficiency in service.  The District Commission after trial dismissed the complaint holding that subject matter in dispute does not fall within the scope and provisions of Consumer Protection Act, against which the appellants before this Commission and submits that it is the responsibility on the part of the respondent to maintain the service road which was adjacent to the National Highway 66.  They are the tax payers and it is considered as consideration amount to the service provided by the respondent but, the District Commission fails to appreciate the said facts and dismissed the complaint.  The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. 

3.     The son of complainant died due to the negligence on the part of Opposite Parties in not constructing and maintaining the service road properly.  Therefore, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.49,00,000/- hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and allow the complaint in the interest of justice and equity and direct this respondent/s to pay the above said amount.

        4.     Heard from appellants on admission.

5.     We are of the opinion that, mere payment of tax to the government does not amount to the consideration amount.  The payment of tax is a duty on the part of the citizens of the country.   If at all any negligence noticed, the said can be challenged and questioned before appropriate authority under provisions of the Law of Prevailed.  The Consumer Protection Act is only applicable to the consumers and seller/service providers where the consumer transactions took place.  Here, we do not find any consumer transaction took place between the parties.  Mere negligence in maintaining the road does not fall within the definition of deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  At the same time, these appellants have the liberty to approach the appropriate authority for claiming damages.  Accordingly,

O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed.No order as to costs.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.

(Sunita .C. Bagewadi)                               (Ravishankar)      

        Member                                              Judicial Member

ARD*