Mewa Ram filed a consumer case on 16 Jun 2017 against Kanchan Bala in the Rupnagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/16/49 and the judgment uploaded on 06 Jul 2017.
BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. : 49 of 01.09.2016
Date of decision : 16.06.2017
Mewa Ram, aged about 63 years, son of Shiv Ram, resident of House No.52, Ranjit Avenue, Bela Road, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar
......Complainant
Versus
1. Kanchan Bala, wife of Kanwal Nain Kakar, Resident of House No.199-D, Mohalla Sheikha, Partap Bazar, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar
2. Municipal Council, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar, through its Executive Officer.
....Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. Pal Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant
Complaint against O.P. No.1 stands DAW
Sh.Manjeet Singh Nagra, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.2
ORDER
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Mewa Ram through his counsel has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-
i) To direct the O.P. No.2 to recover alleged sewerage and water charges amount of Rs.13,622/- or any other amount against House No.52, HIG (First and Second Floor) measuring 150 Yards, Development Scheme, Ranjit Avenue, Rupnagar, allegedly dues for the period from 23.5.2005 to 11.09.2013 from O.P. No.1 only and to withdraw the said demands notice issued by the MC against the complainant which the O.P. No.2 has demanded from the complainant vide their notice No.2202 dated 18.07.2016 and to issued a direction/order to the O.P. No.1 to pay the said amount or any other amount due for the said period to the O.P. No.2.
ii) To pay Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with interest @ 18% per annum from 18.07.2016 till payment,
iii) To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is resident of House No.52, Ranjit Avenue, Bela Road, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar. He purchased the said house from Kanchan Bala and had made full and final payment to her on 14.08.2016 and possession of the said house was delivered to him by her on 11.09.2013. She executed an affidavit dated 14.08.2016, wherein she deposed that she is liable to pay the outstanding amount, if found due against the said house prior to the sale. He received a bill from the O.P. No.2. i.e. Municipal Council, Rupnagar, against the said house, vide which it demanded Rs.13,622/- as sewerage and water charges for the period from 23.5.2005 to 11.09.2013, whereas during this period the O.P. No.1 was the owner of the said house and had availed the sewerage and water facility consumed the water during the said period and utilize the sewerage services and O.P. No.2 was entitled to recover the said amount from O.P. No.1 as is evident from her affidavit. The O.P.No.1 has already given an undertaking to pay the due amount for the period for which she owner and possession of the said house. The O.P. No.2 previously had also sent a notice to him for payment of the arrear amount, same was duly replied by him vide letter dated 3.11.2014. On their further demand, he explained the O.P.No.2 vide letter dated 25.2.2016 and requested it to recover the arrears from O.P. No.1 only. He also apprised about the said fact to the O.P. No.1. Inspite of that the O.P. No.2 again demanded the said amount from him vide demand notice dated 3.3.2016 and 18.07.2016, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Hence, this complaint.
3. On being put to the notice, the O.P. No.2 has filed written version taking preliminary objection; that the complainant has suppressed distorted and conceal vital and material facts; that the complainant is the owner and in possession of the house No.52, Ranjit Avenue, Rupnagar and he is liable to pay all the dues pending against the said house; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum; that the allegations and averments contained in the complaint are denied except those that are admitted here under. On merits, it is stated that the complainant is the owner and in possession of the house. The O.P. No.2 has admitted the factum of transfer of ownership of the said property and sending of bill of Rs.13,622/- to the complainant. It is also admitted that it had received the replies from the complainant. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.
4. On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Manjinder Singh, EO Rupngaar, Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
6. From the record, it is borne out that the complainant purchased the house No.52, Ranjit Avenue, Bela Road, Rupnagar, from Smt. Kanchan Bala i.e. O.P. No.1. The sewerage and water facilities are being provided by the O.P. No.2 in the said house. The O.P. No.2 vide notice No.2202 dated 18.07.2016, Ex.C5, raised a demand of Rs.13,622/- as water and sewerage charges for the period from 23.5.2005 to 30.09.2013 against the complainant. The plea of the complainant is that the demand raised by the O.P. No.2 is illegal because he purchased the said house from Kanchan Bala i.e. O.P. No.1 and had taken possession of the said house on 11.09.2013and during the period from 23.5.2005 to 30.09.2013, Smt. Kanchan Bala, was the owner of the said house and if any amount is due for the said period, then O.P. No.2 is entitled to recover the same from her, only. Smt. Kanchan Bala, has given an undertaking that she would pay the amount if any found due for the period for which she was the owner and in possession of the said house, as is evident from her affidavit, Ex.C1. The stand of the O.P. No.2 is that since presently the complainant is the owner of the said house, therefore, he is liable to pay the arrears. It may be stated that O.P. No.2 has not placed on record any law/rules, vide which it is entitled to recover the aforesaid amount for the period in question, from the complainant when he was not the owner of the said house. Be that as it may, we hereby hold that the O.P. No.2 was not right in raising the demand of Rs.13,622/- against the complainant and he is not liable to pay the said amount. The complainant is also entitled to get compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with litigation expenses.
7. In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and the O.P. No.2 and is directed in the following manner:
1. Not to recover Rs.13,622/- from the complainant
2. To pay 2000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.2000/- as litigation cost.
The O.P. No.2 is further directed to comply with the said order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
8. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED (NEENA SANDHU)
Dated .16.06.2017 PRESIDENT
(SHAVINDER KAUR)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.