Binod Kumar Roy and S.K. Jain,
1. The prayer of the pettttoner is to quash the order dated 2.2.1994 passed by District Forum Consumer Protection, Shahjahanpur, respondent No. 2, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 as compensation for the inconvenience and trouble caused besides cost of Rs. 3.000 of the proceedings to respon-
dent No. 1 (as contained in Annexure-3) in Complaint Case No. 834 of 1993 filed by respondent No. 1 Ganga Ram against the petitioner for granting suitable compensation and refund of the water taxes paid by him to the petitioner on the ground that his house has not been supplied regularly water by the petitioner despite several notices and who did not pay any heed to him.
2. We find that on 17.1.1995 the following order was passed by the Bench before which this writ petition was placed for consideration :
“Notices to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to show cause why this petition be not admitted and disposed of at the admission stage. Counter-affidavit may be filed within four weeks. Notices on the said respondents be effected under the registered cover to be submitted within two days returnable within four weeks. List the writ petition on 21.2.1995.
Meanwhile, operation of the order contained in Annexure-3 shall remain suspended until further orders.
Sd./- U. P. Singh, J.,
Sd./- S. K. Phaujdar, J.”
3. Sri Vinod Misra, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition contended as follows : fi) No counter-affidavit having been filed by respondent No. I the statement made in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that the petitioner has not sold the water nor has rendered any service to respondent No. 1 against any consideration thereby he (respondent No. 1) was not a ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and. accordingly, his complaint before respondent No. 1 was not maintainable and respondent No. 2 has committed an apparent jurisdictional error in assuming jurisdiction in it and in proceeding to pass the impugned order, (ii) Even assuming that the respondent No. 1 falls in the category of consumer, as defined under the Act and thereby respondent No. 2 had jurisdiction to
pass the order impugned, the apparent fact that the supply of water being dependant upon the supply of electricity which was not within the control and/or domain of the petitioner, as stated in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, again an apparent Jurisdictional error has been committed in passing the impugned order.
4. Having perused the provisions of the Act and taking into consideration non-filing of any counter-affidavit by the respondents, we find that respondent No. 1 was/is not a “consumer” within the meaning of the Act and thereby respondent No. 2 lacked Jurisdiction to entertain his complaint and pass the order impugned on merits.
5. Accordingly, the Impugned order is set aside, the complaint of respondent No. 1 dismissed and this writ petition allowed. However, in view of the fact that none has appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest this proceeding, we make no order as to cost.
6. The office is directed to despatch a copy of this order within two weeks to respondent No. 2.