JUDGEMENT
The brief facts giving rise to this complaint are that the complainant is a resident and original allottee of Kendriya Vihar II, Sector 82, Noida, and has been residing there since 2005 with his family, including two daughters aged 9 and 4 years. That housing colony spans about 40 acres, was built for central government employees, and has 2,276 dwelling units with over 10,000 residents, including senior citizens and children. The Resident Welfare Association (Respondent No. 1) is responsible for the well-being and safety of residents, and its office bearers—Respondent No. 2 (Secretary), Respondent No. 3 (Treasurer), and Respondent No. 4 (Development Authority)—are expected to provide maintenance and security services. The complainant has regularly paid maintenance and security charges since 2005 and qualifies as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, as he is availing services rendered by the RWA. On 29 June 2022, at about 9:20 PM, the complainant's 4-year-old daughter, Shayra Aggarwal, was brutally attacked by a group of stray dogs in the green park behind the RWA office. She suffered Category-III bite marks on her back and was rescued by a passerby. The complainant immediately took her to Yatharth Hospital, where a child specialist examined her, applied ointment, and administered Anti-Rabies injections. This was not the first stray dog bite incident in the society; residents had repeatedly complained to the RWA office bearers about the stray dog menace, with numerous
2
children, residents, and housing maids previously attacked. Despite written complaints and Central Government guidelines for curbing stray dogs, the Respondents failed to act, resulting in increasing dog populations attacking elderly and children within society parks and playing areas.
The RWA, as the principal office bearers, has a duty to provide security and safety to residents, but Respondents 1 to 3 willfully neglected this duty, putting residents' lives in danger. A Board Member, Mrs Meenakshi Bhattacharya, emailed the President and Secretary on 07.10.2021, suggesting corrective measures to uproot the menace, but they ignored the suggestions. Hon'ble Supreme Court guidelines require feeding stray dogs in less-frequented areas and annual rabies vaccination, but the RWA neither designated feeding areas nor approached authorities for vaccination. After the incident, the complainant emailed Respondent No. 1, but no board member showed sympathy. Mrs Bhattacharya again emailed on 02.07.2022 and 03.07.2022, warning the Respondents not to compromise residents' lives, copy to the Police Commissioner, but the Respondents maintained criminal silence. The complainant also approached Respondent No. 4 (Noida Authority) via email on 14.08.2022 and sent video footage to an OSD, but no action was taken. Due to the Respondents' negligence, the complainant and his family suffered severe mental trauma, with the daughter afraid to step out of the house, hampering her growth and development. The complainant seeks Rs. 20,00,000/- compensation for mental harassment, agony, and financial sufferings. The Respondent (Development Authority) has filed a written version and denies most averments in the complaint, stating that many points relating to Respondents 1, 2, and 3 (RWA and its office bearers) are not accepted due to lack of information. It clarifies that Respondent No. 4, Mr Arun Kumar, is wrongly impleaded as Chairman of the Development Authority, as he is not the current Chairman, and the present written statement is filed by the competent officer of the Authority. The Respondent accepts that it received the complainant's complaint and has taken action, informing the Secretary of the Management Board of Kendriya Vihar-II via Letter No. Noida/Par. Abhi. (Jan Swa.)-11/2022/1337 dated 22.12.2022, and has also responded to the RTI query filed by the complainant.
The Respondent asserts that the safety and security of residents in Sector 82 is the sole responsibility of Respondent No. 01 (RWA), which collects annual maintenance, security, and safety fees from residents and provides corresponding services through these fees. Since Respondent No. 04 (Development Authority) does not collect any maintenance charges from the complainant or Sector 82 residents, it is not liable to pay any compensation. The Respondent contends that the complaint is not legally maintainable, is filed with malicious intent to harass and vex the Development Authority, and is liable to be dismissed in its entirety. It further prays that the suit be dismissed and that the Development Authority be awarded ₹10,000/- as costs of the suit under Section 35-A of the CPC.
The Respondents No. 1,2,3 has filed their written version and admit that Opposite Party No. 1 is a registered RWA and that Opposite Parties No. 2 and No. 3 are its elected Secretary and Treasurer, with the President representing the RWA. However, they deny most of the complaint's averments, stating that many factual claims—such as the details of the stray dog attack incident, medical treatment, and allegations of negligence—must be proved by the complainant. The Respondents assert that the complainant does not fall within the definition of "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, and that the entry of stray dogs into society is not a deficiency in service, thereby rendering the complaint not legally maintainable under the Act.
3
The Respondents contend that the responsibility for protection against stray dogs lies with the concerned State Government departments and the Noida Authority, not with the RWA or its office bearers. They state that the RWA has issued precautionary instructions to residents regarding the stray dog menace through the society website, notice boards, and the MyGate app, and that the RWA requested the Noida Authority to address the issue via letters and notices. They emphasise that no management committee has the right to expel stray dogs from society, as stray dogs are protected under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001, in accordance with PETA Guidelines and Noida Authority's office order dated 12.12.2022.
The Respondents deny allegations that Mrs Meenakshi Bhattacharya, a Board Member, was negligent in handling the stray dog menace, asserting that she was specifically authorised by the Board to address this threat and that all payments to the Security Agency are duly verified and processed through proper departmental channels. They state that Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 are not the owners of the stray dogs and that it is the residents' responsibility to safeguard their children from such dogs. The Respondents conclude that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation of ₹20 lakhs, the complaint is not maintainable, suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties (Noida Authority and Union of India), and is liable to be dismissed with costs. The complainant has filed an affidavit and copies of documents in support of the complaint.
The opposite party has filed an affidavit and copies of documents in support of the written version.
We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings, documents, and evidence on record.
The present Consumer Complaint has been filed by the Complainant, a resident of Sector 82, alleging that the Resident Welfare Association (RWA) of the sector has failed to ensure the safety and well-being of the residents, particularly in controlling the menace of dogs within the residential premises, thereby committing a deficiency of service. On 29 June 2022, at about 9:20 PM, the complainant's 4-year-old daughter, Shayra Aggarwal, was brutally attacked by a group of stray dogs in the green park behind the RWA office. She suffered Category-III bite marks on her back and was rescued by a passerby. The complainant immediately took her to Yatharth Hospital, where a child specialist examined her, applied ointment, and administered Anti-Rabies injections. The Complainant has also sought direction against Noida for its alleged failure to deal with stray dogs and for not providing adequate protection to residents. The Opposite Parties have filed their respective replies. The RWA has admitted collection of annual maintenance charges from the residents but has denied any deficiency of service, stating that measures have been taken and that the matter of stray dogs is essentially within the domain of the municipal authority. Noida has contended that it does not collect any maintenance charges from the Complainant or from the residents of Sector 82 and that it is not a "service provider" in the context of the Consumer Protection Act and that the Complainant is not its "consumer"
From the facts as stated in the complaint and written versions of the parties, it is not disputed that the Complainant is a resident of Sector 82 and is a member of the RWA of the said sector. The RWA collects an annual maintenance charge from the Complainant and other residents of the sector for upkeep, security, lighting, drainage, and the general well-being of the residential area. Noida, as a municipal/development authority, is the statutory authority responsible for the area but does not collect any maintenance charges
4
from the Complainant or from the residents of Sector 82 for day-to-day residential upkeep. There has been a persistent complaint of dog menace within the residential premises of Sector 82, causing fear, harassment, and at times, actual injury or threat to residents, including children and elderly persons. The Complainant has repeatedly approached the RWA for action to control the dog menace and to ensure safety within the premises, but the alleged measures have been insufficient or ineffective. Under the Consumer Protection Act, a "consumer" is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services, for a consideration, which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, and includes any user of such goods or services, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.
The term "service" is defined to include service of any nature which is made available to potential users, and includes (among other things) facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging, housing construction, entertainment, amusement, or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.
The payment of maintenance charges by members to an RWA, for the purpose of upkeep of common areas, security, lighting, drainage, and other facilities, constitutes availing of services for a consideration. The RWA, in collecting such charges and undertaking to provide maintenance and safety-related services, is rendering "service"
within the meaning of the Act. Consequently, the residents who pay such charges are
"consumers" of the services of the RWA. The duty to prevent dog menace within the residential premises, to ensure the safety and well-being of the residents, and to maintain a secure and hygienic environment falls primarily on the RWA, which collects maintenance charges and is responsible for the internal management and welfare of the residential area. While Noida may have a general statutory duty towards stray dog control in the municipal area, it does not, in this factual matrix, act as a service provider in relation to the Complainant. The fact that the 4-year-old daughter of the complainant was injured on 29 June 2022, at about 9:20 PM, when she was brutally attacked by a group of stray dogs in the green park behind the RWA office and she suffered Category-III bite marks on her back has not been specifically denied by the opposite parties. The complainant immediately took her to Yatharth Hospital, where a child specialist examined her, applied ointment, and administered Anti-Rabies injections. The complainant has filed documents in support that his daughter was treated for dog bites on that day in Yathath Hospital, Noida. The RWA is responsible for the well-being and safety of the residents within the residential premises. This includes taking effective measures to prevent dog menace, ensuring that stray or aggressive dogs do not cause harm or fear to the residents, and maintaining a safe and hygienic environment.
These facts establish that the RWA has failed to discharge its obligation to provide safe and adequate maintenance and security services to the residents. This amounts to deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act.
Noida, as a statutory municipal/development authority, performs regulatory and developmental functions in the area. In Noida, there is no separate municipal body (like a Municipal Corporation or Nagar Nigam). Instead, the civic and municipal duties are discharged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, commonly known as the NOIDA Authority. Noida was set up as a planned industrial township under the
5
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976; the authority itself was tasked with both developing the city and managing its daily civic infrastructure. While it is responsible, in general, for the protection and control of stray dogs in the municipal area, it does not, in the present case, collect any fees from the Complainant or from the residents of Sector 82 for day-to-day residential upkeep. It is the set legal position that if a municipal corporation provides a service as part of its statutory or sovereign duties, and it is funded by general taxes, one does not qualify as a consumer. If the municipal corporation (or a development authority) provides a specific service for which one pays a direct fee, user charge, or specific consideration, one does qualify as a consumer. In the present matter, there is no direct contractual or service relationship between the Complainant and Noida, such as "hiring or availing of any service" for a consideration. Hence, the Complainant is not a "consumer" vis-à-vis Noida in the present context, and the complaint against Noida on the ground of deficiency of service cannot be sustained in the present proceeding.
Since the RWA has committed deficiency of service, it is liable to compensate the Complainant for the loss, injury, and mental agony suffered. The Complainant has also incurred costs in pursuing the consumer complaint and engaging legal representation. The complaint is liable to be allowed.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed partially. The RWA OP no 1 shall pay to the Complainant compensation of Rs. 100,000/- for the mental agony, harassment, risk and injuries caused to his daughter due to the persistent dog menace, and Rs. 5,000/- for the costs of the complaint proceedings and legal expenses. The total amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of this order. In case of default in payment, the RWA OP No 1 shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of expiry of 30 days till actual payment. The complaint against Noida OP No 4 is dismissed.
Application (s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Order. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019.
The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order. Anju Sharma Anil Kumar Pundir
Member President
Judgement announced today with our signature and date in open
court/commission.
Anju Sharma Anil Kumar Pundir
Member President
Date: 10/07/2026