Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                   Complaint No. : 229.

                                                                   Instituted on     : 13.07.2020.

                                                                   Decided on       : 06.12.2022.

Saurav Ahuja, aged 31 years son of Shri Ashok Ahuja, resident of House No. 847/25, Ahuja Kunj, Chinyot Colony, Rohtak.

                                                                             ……..Complainant.

                             Vs.

Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) IMT, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Additional General Manager. 

……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:       Shri M.K. Munjal, Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Shakti Singh, Advocate for opposite parties.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that complainant is owner and possession of plot no.64 in HSIIDC Industrial Estate Rohtak. A water connection  has been installed in the said premises and the same is used for washroom purposes only as the water is not fit for drinking purposes. The sewerage connection is also not used for any commercial or Industrial purpose. Opposite party has sent a water/sewerage bill No.IE2020-AM-34 dated 25.06.2020 for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.05.2020 for a amount of Rs.30331/- payable by due date 10.07.2020.  The meter reading in the said bill has been mentioned as Zero.  In the said bill the arrears have been shown as Rs.28909/-. In the same bill in the note no.7, it has been mentioned that this bill has been raised on account of service provided by HSIIDC/opposite party subject to the final decision of Apex Court.  Since the matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme court of India regarding the subject matter hence there was  no occasion for the department to send the demand notice of Rs.30331/-.  The said demand of bill is absolutely illegal and not binding on the rights of complainant.  The complainant has always been ready and willing to deposit the actual consumption charges on the basis of meter reading. Complainant requested the opposite party many a times to recall/withdraw the bill in question but the opposite party is avoiding the same on one pretext or the other and finally refused to recall/withdraw the said bill. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to withdraw/recall the bill water/sewerage bill amounting to Rs.30331/-, to send the bills monthly/bi-monthly and also to pay a sum of Rs.22000/- on account of harassment and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.   

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that initially the plot was allotted to Sh. Sandeep Sangwan vide allotment letter dated 20.08.2009 who later on made a change in constitution from individual to partnership firm. It is further submitted that the water connection was installed in  the premises of the firm after moving the application moved on behalf of the firm in the year 2013. In  this regard authorized signatory of the firm had agreed to pay such charges as the Haryana State Industrial & Infra. Development Corporation Ltd., from time to time be entitled to make. The water connection was installed in the premises of the complainant after moving the application and since then he has been utilizing the same without any kind of interruption on the part of opposite party and there was no complaint of any kind regarding the quality of the water.  It is pertinent to mention here that there is a provision of recovery of surcharge in case of non-payment of the water/sewerage bill and the complainant has concealed the fact of non-payment of previous bills issued by the opposite party and has put forward a false version very cleverly only to gain sympathy.  As the process of allotment of the plots was challenged and the appeal is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, so in the note No.7, it has been mentioned that the bill has been raised on account of service provided by HSIIDC subject to the final decision of the Apex Court.      In fact, the opposite party has issued the bills previously, but the complainant did not deposit the bill and surcharge/penalty was imposed upon him. The water charges have been claimed by the opposite party according to the guidelines regarding release and billing of water/sewerage connections and Water Tariff Policy 2011.  All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and thereafter failed to conclude his evidence. As such evidence of complainant was closed by the order dated 28.07.2022 of this Commission. Ld. counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R13 and closed his evidence on dated 19.10.2022.

 4.               We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                 After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per water tariff policy-2011 as mentioned in Ex.R4 the charges of water supply in C-II  i.e. Sonepat, Rohtak & Jhajjar Districts is Rs.11/- per KL. As per complainant, he is not using the water supply of the respondent. This fact has been proved from the perusal of Ex.C2(bill dated 25.06.2020). In this bill the new water reading and old reading is mentioned as 55. Meaning thereby the complainant is not using the water supply of the opposite party. Moreover in the bill Ex.R5 dated 08.04.2019 the old and new reading of the water meter are not mentioned.

6.                At the time of arguments, it has been submitted by the complainant counsel that he has no objection, if the water supply connection is disconnected as they are not using the water supply of the respondent since long. Hence from the documents placed on record it is proved that there was no consumption of water at the premises of complainant but the opposite party has sent a bill of Rs.30331/- for the alleged period. As such the same is illegal and opposite party is not liable to recover the same except the sewerage charges.

7.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to withdraw the alleged bill of Rs.30331/- and to issue a fresh bill to the complainant for the sewerage charges only. Opposite party is further directed to disconnect the water supply connection of the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. 

8.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

06.12.2022

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Vijender Singh, Member.