BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 14^th DAY OF JULY 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct them to consider the water connection to his house as fully domestic water connection and refund the excess charges collected since 2012.

 2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

That the complainant is owner of house no.10 situated at 2^nd Cross, MICO Layout, J.C Nagar, Bangalore-86.  The said house has been given with water supply of ½ inch from BWSSB, Bangalore.  Complainant uses the ground floor for storage, repair of UPS units with three people working in the said floor.  Partial use of residential building for non-domestic operation is permitted under BBMP Act and Rules.  The BWSSB has changed his water connection to partially non-domestic in the year 2012.  Complainant represented to AEE, No.2, Water Supply and Sewage Sub-Division-14 stating that water is not used for non-domestic operation and requested to restore earlier allotted full domestic water connection.  This request was rejected by AEE.  Complainant aggrieved by the order made by AEE submitted a representation to OP in February 2015 stating that the order of AEE is unjustified and no water is used for non-domestic operation.  The OP after examining representation and the report of the concerned area sub staff replied that a toilet in the floor is used by people working in a non-domestic operation and therefore rejected his request.  BWSSB has considered water used for toilet and for drinking by 3 people working in non-domestic operation as non-domestic consumption and treated the non-domestic operation on par with chemical industrial operation, hotel operation and building construction etc.

Therefore, the complainant prays for a direction to the OP to treat the water connection to his house as fully domestic water connection and refund the non-domestic charges collected since 2012.

3. In response to the notice issued OP entered their appearance through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:

There is no deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant.  It is true that the complainant was provided with water connection treating the same as domestic connection.  However during the inspection of the said premises, it was found that the complainant was using portion of the ground floor for non-domestic purpose, wherein he has used the ground floor for storage, repair of UPS units with 3 persons working.  As per BWSSB Act, 1964 the partial non domestic with 0% rates are levied.  Non domestic charge of Rs.500/- for bore well is charged.  However water and sanitary charges are levied at domestic rate only.  Since the complainant has converted the ground floor for commercial purpose and since there is a sanitary point in the said ground floor which is being used by the working staff and others the complainant is levied partial non-domestic charges of Rs.500/-.  That the complainant is not treated at par with chemical industrial operation, hotel operation and building construction etc., as alleged in the complaint.  The complainant is making attempt to make unlawful gain for himself. 

Therefore the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

4. Subsequent to filing of version, the complainant was called upon to submit his evidence by way affidavit.  Accordingly, he submitted his affidavit evidence.  Thereafter, OP got filed the affidavit evidence of their Assistant Executive Engineer Sri.Harinath R in support of the averments made in the version.  Both parties have submitted written arguments.

 5. On the rival contention of both the parties, the points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        6. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, averments made in the version, sworn testimony of both parties, written arguments, documents submitted by the complainant and other materials placed on record.

7. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

8.  It is not in dispute that, the complainant is owner of house No.10 situated at 2^nd Cross, MICO Layout, J.C Nagar, Bangalore has been provided with ½ inch water supply connection from BWSSB, Bangalore.  Subsequently in the year 2012 the BWSSB has found that the complainant is making use of the ground floor for non-domestic purpose started charging partial non-domestic water charges at Rs.400/- per month.  The complainant admits that, he is making use of the portion of the ground floor for non-domestic purpose.  He also admits that nobody resides in the ground floor.  It is also not in dispute that there a sanitary point in the ground floor and three men working in the shop at the ground floor make use of the toilet constructed in the ground floor.

9. During the course of inspection, the BWSSB noticed that the complainant is making use of the ground floor for non-domestic purpose i.e., for storing and repairing of UPS units and 3 work men are working in the said shop.  It was also noticed by the BWSSB that a toilet is built in the ground floor for the use of the staff working in the said shop.  Therefore, the BWSSB in accordance with the rules started charging partial non-domestic water charges at the rate of Rs.400/- for the use of ground floor for non-domestic use.  The complainant aggrieved by the same made representation to AEE-2 Water Supply and Sewage Sub-Division-14, 1^st ‘N’ Block, Rajajinagar but AEE rejected the request of complainant to treat the water supply as fully domestic water connection.  Aggrieved by the said order the complainant represented OP and OP after examining the request and after obtaining necessary report from his subordinates also rejected the request of the complainant on the ground that the ground floor is being used for non-domestic purpose.

10. As already stated above, the complainant in his complaint itself, admits that, the ground floor of his house is being used for non-domestic purpose i.e., for storage, repair of UPS units wherein 3 persons are working.  Complainant also admits that, there is a sanitary point in the ground floor and the toilet therein being used by the persons working in the said shop.  When the complainant is making use of the ground floor for non-domestic purpose and the water supply to the ground floor is used for non-domestic purpose certainly he is liable to pay non-domestic charges for the water used in the ground floor.  Admittedly apart from 3 men working in the ground floor the customers who visit the shop may be using the toilet in the ground floor.  One can assess as to the quantity of water used daily or monthly in the ground floor once the water in the ground floor is being used for non-domestic purpose.  The OP is justified in charging non-domestic water tariffs for the use of water in the ground floor in accordance with the rules.  The complainant who is making use of the ground floor for non-domestic purpose has no right to insist OP to charge domestic water charges for the use of the water in the ground floor.  Looking to the amount levied from the complainant for the said non-domestic use cannot be compared with the tariffs levied to a chemical factory, hotel operation or for building construction.  We don’t find any merits in the case of the complainant.  The complainant has failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of the OP.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

11. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:   

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 14^th day of July 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 06.01.2016.

1. Sri.S.Chandrashekariah.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 06.01.2016.

1. Sri.Harinath R.  

Document produced by the Opposite party - Nil

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*