Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/818/2010

Neelam Perhlad w/o sh.Neelam Perhlad - Complainant(s)

Versus

E.O.HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.Ahuja

20 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                         Complaint No…818 of 2010.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 01.09.2010.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 20.04.2016.

Neelam Perhlad aged about 53 years wife of Sh. Perhlad Bhagat, resident of House No. 1316, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

 

1.         The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Jagadhri.

2.         Sub Divisional Engineer, HUDA, Sub Division, Jagadhri.

3.         Executive Engineer, HUDA Division, Karnal.

4.         Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Chief Administrative Officer, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                                                                           …Respondents.

                         

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG,  PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  None for complainant.   

               Sh. V.K.Rajoria, Advocate, counsel for respondents.  

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Neelam Perhlad has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.     

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that she owned and possessed a house bearing No. 1316, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri allotted by respondents No.1 & 4. The complainant got the site plan sanctioned from the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) and paid all the amount for dues in respect of sanction of the site plan and the complainant raised the construction thereon. The complainant got the occupation certificate on 31.3.2010 after completing all the construction thereon and occupation certificate was issued by the OPs after receiving all the development and other charges. The sewerage connection has also been sanctioned before issuance of occupation certificate by the OPs and the OPs had also charged the fees for sewerage connection. The complainant was surprised to hear from the Ops that the file of the sewerage connection of the complainant has been misplaced somewhere in the office files and complainant was asked to submit a fresh file for sewerage connection. The complainant, being an innocent person, was not aware about the mal practice and unfair trade practice used by the OPs, got prepared a new file and submitted it to the Ops in good faith. The complainant was surprised on receipt of notice dated 28.4.2010 in respect of recovery of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- for severage connection whereas the complainant has completed all the requirements as she has got the site plan sanctioned and raised construction as per the site plan and paid all the necessary charges and after completing all the requirements i.e. of water, sewerage connection etc. then the occupation certificate No. 2069 dated 31.3.2010 was issued by the Ops to the complainant. The OPs sent a water and sewerage bill to the tune of Rs. 24,275/- by adding additional charges etc. which is totally illegal and liable to be quashed. However, complainant is ready to make the payment of actual consumption charges of water and sewerage but the Ops refused and threatened that they will recover the penalty first. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs and lastly praying that OPs be restrained from charging the amount of Rs. 24,275/- on account of penalty and surcharge and further to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.   

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts. The true facts are that occupation certificate bearing No. 2069 dated 31.3.2010 was issued to the complainant after completing requisite formalities of the plot No. 1316, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri. Thereafter, on 22.4.2010, the complainant applied for sewerage connection and deposited a sum of Rs. 800/- vide receipt No. 71/2006 dated 22.4.2010 through DD No. 526209 PNB dated 7.4.2010. Thereafter, the official of the HUDA inspected the site and it was found at the spot that sewerage connection was already in the said site. The sewerage connection was unauthorized on the spot and against the policy of HUDA Authority. However, the said sewerage connection has been sanctioned by the HUDA vide letter memo No. 1361 dated 28.4.2010 but the same was subject to penalty of Rs. 20,000/- for unauthorized Sewerage connection as per instructions issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula vide memo No. SA-HUDA-09 dated 8.6.2009 (Annexure R-4) and on merit reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly it has been submitted that as the complainant herself was at fault. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.                     Counsel for the complainant failed to adduce any evidence despite so many opportunities, hence, the evidence of the complainant was closed by court order dated 12.04.2016. However, at the time of filing the complaint, complainant tendered photo copy of water bill for the period from April 2010 to June 2010 amounting to Rs. 24,275/- as Annexure A, photo copy of sanction letter of sewerage connection as Annexure B, photo copy of occupation certificate as Annexure C in support of her complaint.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence photo copy of occupation certificate as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of application for connection of sewerage connection as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of sanction letter dated 28.4.2010 of sewerage connection as Annexure R-3 and Photo copy of guidelines as Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the contents of the complaint as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     It is admitted fact that the complainant is owner in possession of a residential house bearing No. 1316, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri which was allotted by OPs No.1 & 4. It is also admitted that an occupation certificate has been issued by the OPs in favour of complainant on 31.3.2010 which is evident from Annexure C/R-1. It is also admitted that sewerage connection has also been sanctioned by the OPs vide their memo No. 1361 dated 28.4.2010, which is evident from Annexure-B/R-3.

8.                     The moot question involved in the present complaint is that whether the sewerage/water connection of the complainant was unauthorized or not at the time of inspection and the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been rightly imposed upon the complainant by the OPs. To decide this question, we have minutely perused the occupation certificate which has been issued on 31.3.2010 by the OPs vide memo No. 2069 dated 31.3.2010 and further the application for taking sewerage/water connection submitted by the complainant (Annexure R-2) wherein it has been mentioned that the following documents are necessary for taking the sewerage/ water connection:-

1.         Attested copy of possession certificate of plot

2.         Attested copy of permission to cut the road,

3.         Approved building plan,

4.         Completion certificate of building (occupation certificate) issued by Estate Officer, HUDA.

9.                     Meaning thereby that for applying the sewerage/ water connection, occupation certificate is a necessary document. The occupation certificate has been issued by the OPs on 31.3.2010 to the complainant, so prior to that complainant cannot obtain the sewerage/water connection. To prove the version counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards the report of Junior Engineer mentioned on the application (Annexure R-2) in which it has been mentioned that connection has already been found at site but the contention of the counsel for the OPs is not tenable as no affidavit has been filed on behalf of J.E. in support of his report. Further, it has not been mentioned that on which date the site of the complainant was inspected by the Junior Engineer and in whose presence the site was inspected. Even no signature of any other independent witness has been obtained at the time of inspection by the Junior Engineer. It is clear that occupation certificate has been issued on 31.3.2010 by the Ops and the complainant has deposited the requisite fees of Rs. 800/- for obtaining the sewerage/water connection vide DD No. 526209 dated 7.4.2010 drawn at PNB. Meaning thereby that the requisite fees for taking sewerage/water connection has been deposited within a period of 6-7 days from the date of issuance of occupation certificate. So, we are of the considered view that there was no such delay on the part of the complainant for getting the sewerage/water connection because it was a condition that prior to applying for the water/sewerage connection, the occupation certificate is required. Further, the OPs has not filed any cogent evidence to rebut the version of the complainant that her earlier file for taking the sewerage/ water connection has been misplaced by the OPs for which she submitted duplicate file on 22.4.2010. Although she has submitted the duplicate file on 22.4.2010 but it is clear that complainant had deposited the requisite fees on 7.4.2010 by way of demand draft drawn at PNB Bank in favour of the Ops on account of sewerage/ water connection fees. Learned counsel for the Ops draw our attention towards the guidelines Annexure R-4 but the guidelines are not applicable in the present case. Moreover, when the Ops has sanctioned the sewerage/water connection on 28.4.2010 (Annexure R-3) then it cannot be said that the connection of the complainant was unauthorized. As such it is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of Ops for imposing an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as penalty on the innocent lady i.e. complainant.

10.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs not to charge the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant alongwith surcharge or interest thereon and if the amount has already been paid by the complainant then the same be refunded to the complainant with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of deposition till its actual realization and further to pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation and litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 20.04.2016.

(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

 PRESIDENT

                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                     MEMBER.