Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/137/2014

Smt. Maya Gupta w/o P.D.Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

HUDA - Opp.Party(s)

M.C.Gupta

27 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                     Complaint No.137 of 2014.

                                                     Date of institution: 07.03.2014.

                                                     Date of decision: 27.10.2017.

Smt. Maya Gupta wife of Sh. P.D.Gupta, aged about 66 years, resident of H.No.1472, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                             …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Jagadhri.
2. The Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula.

                                                                                             ….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                    SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                    SMT.VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present:      Sh. M.C.Gupta, Advocate, for complainant.   

                   Sh. V.K.Rajoria, Advocate for the OPs.

               

                ORDER

         

(SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

1.              The complainant-Smt. Maya Gupta has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.             Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that she is owner of House No.1472, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri.  It is alleged that after allotment of said plot, the complainant was intending to raise construction over the said plot for which the complainant completed all the formalities.  It is further alleged that the complainant had applied for permission to occupy the said house on 04.12.2008 well before the last date of submission i.e. 31.12.2008 but the Ops did not issue the completion certificate upto August, 2009, even after repeated requests of the complainant and in the month of August, 2009 she was asked to deposit Rs.7100/- on account of completion fee, which was immediately deposited by her.  It is further alleged that the complainant was astonished when she received a memo No.3269 dt. 07.09.2009 issued by the Ops in which a penalty of Rs.20,000/- was levied upon the complainant on account of unauthorized sewer connection, whereas the complainant had not made any unauthorized connection and she had already applied for all the connections with the Ops well within limitation and was ready to make payment demanded by the Ops.  It is further alleged that the complainant had repeatedly made several written requests to the Ops and requested them to accept the water and sewerage bill but they refused to accept the water and sewerage bill without penalty.  It is further alleged that now the Ops have issued a memo No.18 dt. 07.02.2014 asking the complainant to deposit Rs.82,567/- (which includes penalty of Rs.20,000/- also) on account of water/sewerage bill charges and threatened that if in case the same is not deposited, the water/sewerage connection would be disconnected.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint  with the direction to the Ops not to disconnect the water and sewerage connection of house of the complainant and not to charge the penalty amount of Rs.20,000/- and interest/surcharge levied in the said bill and to accept the actual water and sewerage bill and further to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.  Hence, this complaint.

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; being time-barred; that the matter pertains to Sub Divisional Engineer, HUDA, Sub Division, Sector-21, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, so, Sub Divisional Engineer, HUDA is proper and necessary party; thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that proper and necessary party has not been impleaded in the present case; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant applied for occupation certificate on 04.12.2008.  Thereafter, the concerned J.E. inspected the premises on 29.12.2008 for compounding the same.  The inspection report prepared by the J.E. was approved by the then E.O. HUDA in the month of January, 2009 and a sum of Rs.7100/- was approved as compounding fee against the plot and the complainant was requested vide office memo No.1841 dated 27.03.2009 of E.O.HUDA, Jagadhri to deposit this amount.  The allottee had deposited the same on 03.08.2009 and this office has issued occupation certificate.  The E.O. HUDA, Jagadhri requested the complainant to deposit Rs.7100/- vide office memo No.1841 dt. 27.03.2009.  The allottee/complainant had deposited the same on 03.08.2009 and the Ops issued occupation certificate on 10.08.2009 promptly.  So, there is no delay regarding issuance of occupation certificate on the part of Ops.  The other pleas taken in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant as Annexure-CW/A & Annexure-CW/B and documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C26 and closed evidence on behalf of complainant. 

5.             On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops tendered in evidence affidavits of Sh. Gulab Singh, XEN and Sh. D.K.Ahuja, XEN as Annexure RW/A & Annexure-RW/B respectively alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R7 and closed evidence on behalf of Ops.    

6.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

7.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is an owner of plot/house No.1472, Sector-17, Jagadhri and after completing the construction over the said plot, applied for issuance of occupation certificate on 04.12.2008.  The concerned J.E. inspected the premises on 29.12.2008 and reported certain irregularities which were compoundable for an amount of Rs.7100/- and the complainant was asked to deposit this amount vide letter dt. 27.03.2009.  The complainant deposited the amount of Rs.7100/- on 03.08.2009 and the occupation certificate was issued on 10.08.2009.  Now the question arises whether the complainant was entitled to have the sewer connection without any application in this regard by virtue of his application dt. 04.12.2008 for issuance of occupation certificate. 

                Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that since the complainant had applied for occupation certificate on 04.12.2008, so, he was legally entitled to the sewer facility as-well-as water facility.  He further contended that the occupation certificate was not issued by the Ops promptly and thus, he was compelled to occupy the house for which sewer and water facility were the basic requirements.  He further contended that the complainant committed no illegality while availing the sewer facility after her application for issuance of occupation certificate.   Continuing his arguments, he further placed reliance upon the Haryana Building Code, 2017, which has been placed on record as Annexure-C27 and thus, prayed for waiving off the penalty of Rs.20,000/- imposed on her own account of sewer connection. 

                On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops contended that the complainant had already made the connection of sewer at site prior to her application in this regard.  The complainant deposited the amount of Rs.800/- vide DD No.972659/PNB dated 01.09.2009 for sewer connection.  Since the complainant was found already having connection of sewer at site by the concerned J.E. during inspection (Annexure-R1), so, penalty of Rs.20,000/- was rightly imposed and was conveyed to the complainant vide letter bearing memo no.3269 dated 07.09.2009 (Annexure-R2).  Further, ld. Counsel for the Ops drew the attention of this Forum towards guidelines Annexure-R8, whereby Ops were empowered to impose a penalty of Rs.20,000/- on account of un-authorized sewer connection.  Further, he drew the attention towards performa of the application for water connection and sewer connection, which are Annexures R-10 and R-11 respectively. Annexure R9 contains the formalities which are required to be completed for obtaining the water connection and sewer connection. 

8.             We have perused the document Annexure-R1 which makes it crystal clear that the complainant moved an application alongwith DD dt. 01.09.2009 for obtaining the sewer connection and upon inspection of the site, by the concerned J.E., it was reported, which is reproduced as under:-

                “Connection has already been found made at site

                                                Sd/-

                                        Junior Engineer.”

 

                Further, a perusal of document Annexure-R9 reveals that an attested copy of Occupation Certificate for the building was required to be attached with the application for obtaining the sewer connection.  Further, it is also clear that a separate application is/was required to be given to the concerned Executive Engineer/Competent Authority for obtaining the sewer connection.  Thus, the plea of complainant that she was entitled to have the sewer facility only on the basis of her application to the Ops for issuance of occupation certificate is devoid of any legal force and as such, not tenable in the eyes of law.  The officials of Ops had immediately visited the site after 01.09.2009 when requisite fee was deposited with the Ops.  Even there was not much delay in the issuance of occupation certificate as the same was issued on 10.08.2009 after deposition of Rs.7100/- by the complainant on 03.08.2009.  Apart from above, the complainant cannot draw any benefit out of the provisions contained in the Haryana Building Code, 2017 (Annexure-C27) because the same deals with the matter of occupation certificate, whereas the issue in question relates to the sewer connection. It is also made clear that the issue of occupation certificate and issue of sewer connection are separate and distinct matters and both are governed by separate provisions and are issued by separate officers and are dealt with by separate wings of HUDA, which are independent of each other.  Further, the complainant has made all correspondence in the matter of sewer connection with Engineering branch of HUDA i.e. S.D.O./XEN/S.E. and they are the competent authority in the matter.  However, they have not been impleaded as opposite parties in the present case.  Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.  Moreover, this Forum had earlier disposed off 19 connected cases vide common order dt. 30.09.2010 passed in complaint case No.259 of 2010 titled as Ranu Sangwn Vs. HUDA & others involving similar question of law and facts wherein the complaints of all the complainants were dismissed being found baseless and meritless.    

9.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint of complainant and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.      

Announced in open court:

Dated: 27.10.2017.

                                                             (SATPAL)

                                                             PRESIDENT.

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                           MEMBER