BWSSB V/S S Ashok kumar - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/09/219

S Ashok kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

BWSSB - Opp.Party(s)

R Tharesh

05 Feb 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/219

S Ashok kumar						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
BWSSB						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.01.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 04th AUGUST 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.219/2009 COMPLAINANT S.Ashok Kumar, S/o B.Shivalingappa, Aged about 46 years, R/at No.64, 6th Main Road, Meenakshi Nagar, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore. Advocate (R.Tharesha) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Chairman, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore. 2. Additional Chief Engineer (M)11 Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore 560 009. Advocate (S.Ramu) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to withdraw the notice dated 19.05.2008 and accept Rs.2,73,637/- and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: 3. Complainant is the owner of the property bearing No.64. He has got a residential house and a Kalyana Mantapa at Cauvery Nagar, Kamakshipalay, Banglaore. He took a temporary water and sewerage connection and requested the OP to provide permanent water and sewerage connection. When OP failed to consider his requests, he filed Writ Petition in the Honble High Court of Karnataka wherein OP was directed to consider the request of the complainant, if complainant applies within three months from the date of order i.e. 02.08.2003. Then complainant made several requests and demands to OP to abide by the said order but it went in vain. As per the demand made by the OP complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.08.2007, but still OP did not provide permanent connection. On the other hand arbitrarily made demand of Rs.5,59,493/-. Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly. 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP it is the complaint who is a defaulter, he has not sought for permanent connection within three months from the date of the Honble High Court Order. OP made a spot inspection and on the basis of prorate charges caused notice demanding Rs.2,73,637/- on 30.08.2007, but complainant made payment of only Rs.1,00,000/-. No fault lies with the OP. OP gave sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the complainant to pay the said amount, but it went in vain. As per the revised rate for the year 2008, the complainant is required to pay Rs.5,59,493/- but still OP is ready to afford an opportunity to the complainant to pay the old rate, but he failed. Complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Introgataries are filed, they are answered. Then the arguments were heard. 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No.1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief now claimed? Point No.3 :- To what Order? 7. We have gone through the pleadings of both the parties, as well as oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative. Point No.2:- Negative. Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 8. At the out set it is not at dispute that the complainant is the owner of property bearing No.64, wherein, he has constructed a house, as well as Kalayana Mantapa. Complainant took temporary water and sewerage connection, then sought for the permanent connection when OP failed honour his demand he filed the Writ Petition before the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the year 1992. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed on 02.08.2003 with a direction to OP to consider the demand of the complainant if he makes an application within three months. Though complainant made repeated requests and demands to OP there was no response. Then complainant deposited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in August 2007. There is an inordinate delay of nearly Four years that delay is not satisfactorily explained. There is no proof that complainant made any request to OP in writing since 2003 up to August 2007. 9. Further complainant says he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.08.2007. The demand made by the OP was for Rs.2,73,637/- as per prorate charges. Why the remaining amount as per the demand made by the OP is not paid is not known. The demand is made as per the sanction accorded by BWSSB on 19.12.2007. That decision of the board cannot be questioned before this Forum. 10. In our view the action initiated by the OP is well within the purview of law. If the complainant is little deligent he would have paid the said amount and got permanent connection. Unfortunately he himself slept over is rights. Then OP as per the hiked charges raised the bill. Now the complainant is required to pay Rs.5,59,493/- vide letter dated 19.05.2008. 11. It is also made clear that though complainant was given sufficient opportunity to pay the charges as per the old rate he did not utilize said benefits. But on the other hand come up with this belated complaint seeking an untenable relief. OP raised the bill on prorate charge as per the prevailing rate that act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. We find the complaint is devoid of merit. When complainant himself is a defaulter he cant allege the deficiency in service hence he is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point No.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 4th day of August 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT s.n.m.

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.01.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 04th AUGUST 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.219/2009 COMPLAINANT S.Ashok Kumar, S/o B.Shivalingappa, Aged about 46 years, R/at No.64, 6th Main Road, Meenakshi Nagar, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore. Advocate (R.Tharesha) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Chairman, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore. 2. Additional Chief Engineer (M)11 Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore 560 009. Advocate (S.Ramu) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to withdraw the notice dated 19.05.2008 and accept Rs.2,73,637/- and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: 3. Complainant is the owner of the property bearing No.64. He has got a residential house and a Kalyana Mantapa at Cauvery Nagar, Kamakshipalay, Banglaore. He took a temporary water and sewerage connection and requested the OP to provide permanent water and sewerage connection. When OP failed to consider his requests, he filed Writ Petition in the Honble High Court of Karnataka wherein OP was directed to consider the request of the complainant, if complainant applies within three months from the date of order i.e. 02.08.2003. Then complainant made several requests and demands to OP to abide by the said order but it went in vain. As per the demand made by the OP complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.08.2007, but still OP did not provide permanent connection. On the other hand arbitrarily made demand of Rs.5,59,493/-. Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly. 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP it is the complaint who is a defaulter, he has not sought for permanent connection within three months from the date of the Honble High Court Order. OP made a spot inspection and on the basis of prorate charges caused notice demanding Rs.2,73,637/- on 30.08.2007, but complainant made payment of only Rs.1,00,000/-. No fault lies with the OP. OP gave sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the complainant to pay the said amount, but it went in vain. As per the revised rate for the year 2008, the complainant is required to pay Rs.5,59,493/- but still OP is ready to afford an opportunity to the complainant to pay the old rate, but he failed. Complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Introgataries are filed, they are answered. Then the arguments were heard. 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No.1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief now claimed? Point No.3 :- To what Order? 7. We have gone through the pleadings of both the parties, as well as oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative. Point No.2:- Negative. Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 8. At the out set it is not at dispute that the complainant is the owner of property bearing No.64, wherein, he has constructed a house, as well as Kalayana Mantapa. Complainant took temporary water and sewerage connection, then sought for the permanent connection when OP failed honour his demand he filed the Writ Petition before the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the year 1992. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed on 02.08.2003 with a direction to OP to consider the demand of the complainant if he makes an application within three months. Though complainant made repeated requests and demands to OP there was no response. Then complainant deposited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in August 2007. There is an inordinate delay of nearly Four years that delay is not satisfactorily explained. There is no proof that complainant made any request to OP in writing since 2003 up to August 2007. 9. Further complainant says he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 30.08.2007. The demand made by the OP was for Rs.2,73,637/- as per prorate charges. Why the remaining amount as per the demand made by the OP is not paid is not known. The demand is made as per the sanction accorded by BWSSB on 19.12.2007. That decision of the board cannot be questioned before this Forum. 10. In our view the action initiated by the OP is well within the purview of law. If the complainant is little deligent he would have paid the said amount and got permanent connection. Unfortunately he himself slept over is rights. Then OP as per the hiked charges raised the bill. Now the complainant is required to pay Rs.5,59,493/- vide letter dated 19.05.2008. 11. It is also made clear that though complainant was given sufficient opportunity to pay the charges as per the old rate he did not utilize said benefits. But on the other hand come up with this belated complaint seeking an untenable relief. OP raised the bill on prorate charge as per the prevailing rate that act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. We find the complaint is devoid of merit. When complainant himself is a defaulter he cant allege the deficiency in service hence he is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point No.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 4th day of August 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT s.n.m.