BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONAT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 1399/2006 against C.D. 256/2006, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad
Between:
O.P. Tibrewala
S/o. Late Pushkarlal Tibrewala
Age: 73 years, Business
R/o. 5-9-22/51
Adarshnagar,
Hyderabad-500 063. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply &
Sewerage Board,
Rep. by its General Manager
Division No. IV, Red Hills
Hyderabad. *** Respondent/
Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. V. Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Resp: Mr. N. Rajeswara Rao
F.A. 1439/2006 against C.D. 256/2006, Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad
Between:
Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply &
Sewerage Board,
Rep. by its General Manager
Division No. IV, Red Hills
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
Opposite Party.
And
O.P. Tibrewala
S/o. Late Pushkarlal Tibrewala
Age: 73 years, Business
R/o. 5-9-22/51
Adarshnagar,
Hyderabad- 500 063. *** Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. N. Rajeswara Rao
Counsel for the Resp: Mr. V. Gourisankara Rao
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER
FRIDAY, THIS THE NINTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) These appeals one preferred by the complainant F.A. 1399/2006 against the order of the Dist. Forum in refusing to direct the respondent Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board (for short ‘water board’) to revise the water bills and granting inadequate compensation, while the respondent water board filed F.A. 1439/2006 against the very order of the Dist. Forum directing it to revise Ex. A27 bill and pay compensation of Rs. 4,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
2) The parties are described as arrayed in the complaint for felicity of expression. in order to obviate confusion in describing the parties.
3) The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a business man and President of Hyderabad Cloth Merchants’ Association and other organizations. He purchased land in Adarshnagar in the year 1980 and constructed an independent house. He was having water connection. Despite his requests to change the name of G. Janardhan and transfer the connection in his name, it did not do so. He has been utilising the water for his domestic purpose consisting of himself and six family members and paying water bills regularly. While so, from 2001 onwards the water board has been issuing highly inflated bills over and above Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/-. However, he has been paying the same under protest. On 6.2.2006 he had received a bill for Rs. 9,165/-, Sewerage Cess @ Rs. 3,207/- and service charges @ Rs. 12/-. It demanded Rs. 12,384/- for six months. It has shown arrears at Rs. 32,446/- and demanded altogether an amount of Rs. 44,380/-. He requested the water board officials to revise bills but they declined to do so.
In view of threat of disconnection of water supply he issued three cheques and all the cheques were honoured. He requested the water board officials to revise the bills. However, on 6.4.2006 the Board again issued a bill for Rs. 50,154/- showing arrears of Rs. 29,380/- though he paid the amount by way of cheques. Therefore, he filed the complaint requesting the water board to revise bills from 23.9.2001 to 6.4.2006 and adjust excess payment made by him, pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards damages and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.
4) The respondent water board resisted the case. It alleged that water connection stands in the name of one Sri G. Janardhan. It was not aware that the complainant had filed an application to change the connection to his name, and equally the purchase of site by him and construction of the house therein. The property itself was not transferred in his name. The complainant did not file title deed, mutation certificate, no objection certificate etc., in order to affect the change. It was not aware since how long the complainant has been staying in the premises, and utilizing the water. He has not substantiated the same by filing any document. It denied that the bills issued by it were inflated. They were issued basing on the meter readings. The meter was fixed in May, 1999. When the meter was failed in April, 2001 it gave a bill on an average consumption basis up to August, 2002. The bills were issued from time to time as per the rates of tariff. When the staff of the water board visited the premises on 28.3.2006 demanding payment of bills and on failure to pay to affect disconnection of water supply , the complainant assaulted the Manager and Lineman threatening that he would lodge a criminal complaint on the ground of trespassing in his property. On that water board staff gave a complaint to the Station House Officer, Saifabad.
When he was brought to the police station, he requested the staff to withdraw the complaint and gave four cheques for Rs. 39,830/- out of which two cheques amounting to Rs. 19,830/- were bounced. When the complainant complained that the meter was faulty, they fixed a new meter on 8. 10. 2005. As per the tariff a revised bill for Rs. 12,384.75 was issued mentioning the arrears at Rs. 44,830.80 as on 6.2.2006. The fact that cheques were bounced would itself show the conduct of the complainant. The complainant could not claim that he had paid the bills when the cheques that were issued were bounced. These contentions were taken to mislead the Forum. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on its part in issuing the bills. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A28 marked, while the respondent water board filed the affidavit evidence of its General Manager.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant was not entitled to question the bills issued under Exs. A1 to A19 & Ex. A24, however the water board was directed to verify the bill Ex. A27 issued for an amount of Rs. 50,154.30 being abnormal. It also directed the water board to pay Rs. 4,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs. It also directed to check the meter and change his name on receiving necessary application and documents.
7) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred F.A. No. 1399/2006 contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have directed the water board to revise the bills from 23.9.2001 to 6.4.2006. The Dist. Forum ought to have opined that the water board has been issuing the bills with incorrect particulars and as such ought to have granted entire compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as claimed.
8) The Water Board preferred the appeal F.A. 1439/2006 contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either the facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that change of name cannot be made since the complainant could not prove that he was the owner of the premises or that he has been utilizing the water. At no time, the complainant did pay the arrears. No proof was furnished in order to state that the bills that were issued were incorrect. It ought not to have awarded compensation or costs as the complainant could not prove any deficiency in service on its part. Therefore, it prayed that the appeal be allowed, consequently, dismiss the complaint.
9) The points that arise for consideration are :
i) Whether the complainant is entitled for mutation of name for water connection?
ii) Whether the bills issued by the water board were incorrect?
iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation?
10) The complainant claims to be the owner of house bearing No. 5-9-22/51, Adarshanagar, having constructed the said house on the land purchased by him in the year 1980. He alleges that he got water connection to his house which he has been using from 1980 onwards. Evidently, the house as well as water connection stand in the name of one G. Janardhan. It is not known how name of G. Janardhan is still continuing. He intends by this complaint to get his name mutated in the records of water board. The plea that he constructed the house is contrary to the record. Had he constructed the house, necessarily he would apply to the Municipal Corporation seeking permission etc. for construction of the house. In such case his name should find a place in the municipal records. He is silent on this aspect. The water board insists for documents of title in order to mutate his name. The complainant did neither furnish these documents to the water board nor filed before the Consumer Fora, in order to appreciate that he was the owner of the house.
11) As we have earlier stated that the complainant intends that his name should be mutated in the records of water board, without getting his name mutated in the municipal records as to the ownership of the house as required by Circular No. HWSSB/FIN/TARIFF/102/93-94 Dt. 30.4.1993 of Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. Clause No. 5 of the above circular stipulates the procedure for ‘Change of name’ which reads as follows :
“The present practice is to charge a nominal fee of Rs. 100/- for ½” dia and Rs. 200/- for ¾” dia for registering any change of name on account of mutation. It is clarified that a nominal fee of Rs. 100/- be collected in all such cases. However, such change should be approved/made on the basis of mutation orders of the municipal or concerned authority”. (emphasis supplied)
The above rule mandates that the mutation could be only effected if records of the municipal corporation justify such a mutation.
The complainant did not file any document or proceedings to show that the above rule was complied. Without complying, it is highly unjustified on the part of complainant to seek mutation of his name only for effecting change of name in regard to water supply. He did not get his name mutated in the Municipal records pertaining to his house. This is rather strange. We may state that the very conduct of the complainant all through is highly suspicious. Evidently, when a bill Dt. 6.2.2006 was issued demanding arrears of Rs. 44,830.80 under Ex. A24, the complainant has issued four cheques for an amount of Rs. 39,830/- out of which two cheques amounting to Rs. 19,830/- were bounced. We may mention herein that he issued these cheques when he was arrested by the Station House Officer, Saifabad on a complaint issued by the staff of the water board alleging that he assaulted them. Obviously, to wriggle out the situation, he issued those cheques. However, his intentions are clear. He did not intend to pay the amount due towards supply of water. Though he alleges that he issued these cheques under protest, obviously, he issued those cheques knowing full well that they would be bounced as he was not having requisite amount in his account. In the process he did not pay the amount coerced under the bills. He paid part of the amount but harps on the point that they should also be taken as payment. Though he claims himself as President of various organizations and a famous personality etc. his conduct did not justify such claims for evaluating his pleas. He ought not to have issued those cheques amounting to Rs. 39,830/- when amount due was Rs. 44,830/- vide Ex. A24, more so when he was not having that amounts. The complainant no doubt sent a letter Dt. 31.3.2006 protesting for issuing such a bill. However, he did not prefer any appeal as required u/s 111 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Act, 1989 (Act 15/1989 as amended by Act 4/1997).
In view of the fact that cheques were bounced the Board issued a bill for Rs. 50,154.30 under bill Dt. 6. 4. 2006 vide Ex. A27 including Rs. 29,830/- payable towards arrears. It is clear that he knew full well that he was utilizing the water and he had to pay the amount covered under the bills and by issuing cheques he intends to get over payment of amount knowing full well that they would be bounced, making himself liable to pay subsequent arrears amounting to Rs. 50,154.30 vide Ex. A27.
12) The complainant without paying the amount, intends to utilize water supply and also in the process filed the complaint seeking mutation of his name without following any procedure. We reiterate that it is not known why the complainant did not file his title deeds, even at the time when the enquiry was conducted, when all through the water board was putting the complainant to prove that he was the owner and as such entitled to water connection. The order of the Dist. Forum directing the water board to mutate his name cannot be upheld in the light of above provisions. Equally the Dist. Forum was not justified in awarding damages against water board. Instead it ought to have awarded damages against the complainant for coming with a false complaint and without following the procedure as contemplated under the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Act, 1989. Undoubtedly, this is an unholy claim made by the complainant without proving any of these facts, obviously to gain advantage by resorting to Consumer Fora. It is an abuse of process of law.
13) In the result F.A. 1439/2006 preferred by the water board is allowed, consequently F.A. 1399/2006 filed by the complainant is dismissed. As a corollary the complaint is dismissed. The respondent water board is entitled to costs in the appeal quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) _________________________________
MEMBER
3) _________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 19. 06. 2009.
