ORDER                                                                                                                                 Dated:  08-08-2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1. This complaint was filed on 13-4-2015 wherein complainant alleged that  he and his wife are owner of the property A-20, J. J. Colony.  Residents of 1^st floor to 5^th floor of this property  have taken illegal water connection and one authorised connection is taken  vide no. 6457281000 in which amount of Rs. 109927/-  is due upto14.1.2015 as per RTI reply.  He had no concern with the illegal water connections in the property but  due to non-payment of the said arrears by the residents of 1^st floor to 5^th floor, he and his family  apprehend that OP can take legal action against him.   It is further stated that OP are not serious to their duties , responsibilities  and service hence there  is deficiency on the part of the OPs.  It is prayed  that  Rs 80,000/- be  given to him as compensation for harassment with Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. In reply OPs denied the allegations made in the complaint and objected that since no cause of action arose in favour of complainant against OPs  complaint be dismissed with cost.  
3.  Complainant filed rejoinder andevidence  in support of complaint by way of own affidavit along with documents    Ex- CW1  to Ex-CW7A .   In support of reply OPs filed affidavit  ofShGhanshyamRajpal Additional ZRO.    Both the parties filed their written arguments.
4. We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the parties and their written and  oral arguments.  In this case points to be considered are as under:-

(a) Whether complainant is a consumer?

(b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP ?

( c) Relief?

5.  As there is no allegation in the complaint that complainant has taken water connection from the OP or using it, the substance of the complaint clarify that residents of the building owned by complainant has taken water connections and dues raised by the OPs against them and not against the complainant. Therefore, in our opinion,complainant is not a “consumer” and actual dispute is between the complainant and the residents of  his building.  Infact, there is no consumer dispute between the complainant and the OPs. 

6. Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence the present complaint is dismissed accordingly. Both the parties will bear their own cost. 

7. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of cost as per law.  File be consigned to record room. 

Announced on this ……………..