Date of Filing:17.10.2007<br /> Date of Order: 31.01.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> Dated: 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2113 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> Smt. Shantha Bai, <br /> No.224, I Cross, Old Bank Colony,<br /> Konanakunte, <br /> Bangalore-560 062. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> Bangalore Water Supply &<br /> Sewerage Board, <br /> Kengeri Satellite Town Division,<br /> Bangalore-560 061. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President:- <br /> <br /> This complaint is filed U/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant is owner of House bearing No.EWS 499 at Kengeri Satellite Town. The opposite arty issued a notice dated 12/7/2007 demanding Rs.23,943/-. The water supply was stopped. The complainant has paid Rs.3,000/- under protest since it is wrong claim. The opposite party cannot demand amount without consumption of water by the complainant. Complainant never issued the notice. The opposite party cannot demand the amount since the complainant had not use the water. Therefore, the complainant prayed to withdraw and cancel the demand notice dated 12/7/2007 and opposite party be directed to refund Rs.3,000/-.<br /> <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. The same was served by RPAD. In spite of service of notice the opposite party has not appeared remained absent. Defense version also not filed. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of the complainant filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether there was a deficiency of service on the <br /> part of the opposite party? <br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complaint is maintainable?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. I have gone through the complaint. The opposite party had sent demand notice dated 12/7/2007. In this demand notice Rs.13,266/- is shown as arrears of water charge and Rs.10,647/- is shown as interest on arrears. The total amount claimed is Rs.23,943/-. Admittedly, the complainant has paid Rs.3,000/- under protest. The notice issued by the opposite party is only demand notice. The opposite party had issued only demand notice and it is not a final notice. The complaint is premature. The complainant had deposited Rs.3,000/- under protest and she has to file objection before the opposite party in respect of the demand notice dated 12/7/2007 after the order or finding then the complainant has to challenge that order before the higher authority under the Water Supply Sewerage Board regulations. At this preliminary stage she cannot approach the present Forum complaining deficiency in service. It is not a question of deficiency in service. It is a question of issuing wrong demand notice. If the complainant is not liable to pay the amount she can challenge the demand notice before the concerned authority under the board or she can also file a Civil Suit against the present opposite party denying her liability to pay the amount as per the demand notice. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the present dispute does not come under the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It is a dispute in respect of amount and liability to pay the amount. Therefore, this Form cannot adjudicate the matter in question. The complainant will be at liberty to approach the appropriate appellate authority under the Board regulations and thereafter, she will be at liberty to go to Civil Court for getting the relief. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable and it deserves to be dismissed with liberty to the complainant to get the appropriate relief from the competent authority. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br />