Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/169/2019

Municipal Corporation - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kuldeep Chandi - Opp.Party(s)

Geeta Sharma Adv.

10 Sep 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	169 of 2019
Date of Institution	01.08.2019
Date of Decision	10.09.2021

1. Municipal Corporation through Commissioner, Public Health, Sector 17, Chandigarh UT.
2. XEN, Division No.2, Municipal Corporation, Public Health, Sector 11, Chandigarh UT.
3. SDO, Sub Division No.8, Municipal Corporation, Public Health, Manimajra, Chandigarh UT.

                                        …..Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

Kuldeep Chand aged about 49 years s/o Sh. Ram Karam, r/o H.No.2080, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh (UT).                                                                                                                                   …..Respondent/Complainant       

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                  

Argued by:  None for the appellants.

None for the Respondent/Complainant.

           

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 16.05.2019, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh, now District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No.405 of 2018, filed by the complainant, with the following directions: -

“13. Keeping into consideration the facts in issue, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the complaint is allowed with directions to the OPs to jointly & severally refund an amount of Rs.54,790/- to the complainant, charged by them at commercial rates on water bills, along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ”

2.    The facts, in brief, are that appellants installed Water/Sewerage connection vide Account No.901/MZ07/205100Y in the name of Sh. Sambhu Nath pertaining to House No.2051, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra Chandigarh.  It was stated that the said house was purchased by the respondent and his uncle Sh. Bhag Raj and has been divided in two equal parts with agreement that the electricity connection was transferred in the name of Sh. Bhag Raj and water/sewerage connection came in the shape of respondent/complainant and the payment of bill of water/sewerage has been paid by the respondent. It was further stated that the complainant renovated his house and suddenly the Opposite Party No.3 started charging commercial Bill of Water/Sewerage w.e.f. 18.06.2010 and respondent/complainant submitted affidavit on 01.09.2010 vide diary No.1832, but Opposite Party No.3 continued charging commercial bill of water/sewerage till 27.04.2017 total bill amounting to Rs.69,045/-.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties after realizing the mistake, changed the commercial bill to domestic bill on 24.08.2017 and issued new Account No.901/MZ07/205101A/ and admitted that they have to refund the amount of Rs.23,995/-, dated 20.2.2018 vide Annexure C-1.  It was further stated that Opposite Party No.3 wanted to take benefit of its own wrong and transferred the water/sewerage connection vide Account No.901/MZ07/205100Y to the son of Sh. Bhag Raj (deceased), who was using illegal water connection since 1987 and to regularize his connection, the appellants/Opposite Parties were still charging commercial bill of water/sewerage connection pertaining to Account No.901/MZ07/205100Y.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were liable to refund an amount of Rs.54,790/- after deducting an amount of domestic bill of Rs.14,255/- from the total amount of Rs.69,045/-. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. When the grievance of the respondent/complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint was filed.
3. Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have filed their joint written version of the case, stated that the dispute in the present complaint is with regard to the water/sewerage connection of the property bearing No.2051, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.  It was further stated that the complainant had earlier filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that he is the absolute owner of water and sewerage connection in House No.2051/1, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh on the basis of family settlement dated 05.07.1989 and the said suit was contested by appellants/Opposite Parties and the same was dismissed vide judgment decree dated 25.07.2016 by the court of Ms. Nisha, CJJD, Chandigarh by observing that complainant/plaintiff failed to prove his case of alleged family settlement, on the basis of which he is asking the relief and even vide order dated 25.07.2016 and 03.03.2017 (Annexures R-1 & R-2) the appeal filed by the complainant/plaintiff was also dismissed. It was further stated that after passing of the said order, the complainant applied for new/fresh water/sewerage connection on his property bearing House No.2051/1 in his name, whereupon, he was issued new/fresh connection on 19.06.2017 vide Account No.901/MZ07/205101A. It was further stated that the complainant deposited the security and other charges to the tune of Rs.2130/- vide Annexures R-3 & R-4 and kept on paying the bye monthly bills of water/sewerage connection in respect of property No.2051/1.  It was further stated that the complainant on his own deposited an excess amount of Rs.24,200/- on 09.01.2018 and thus, the said amount has been shown in the column of “Arrears” in negative.  It was further stated that the complainant has very cleverly deposited the excess amount on his own and is now projecting total false story that Opposite Parties have realized their mistake and have changed the commercial bill to domestic bill on 24.08.2017 and issued new account.  It was further stated that there had been no commercial bill ever issued in the property of House No.2051/1 i.e. the property of complainant.  It was further stated that the complainant is the owner of House No.2051/1 and had been claiming the ownership over the water/sewerage connection, which was installed in House No.2051, which is now in the name of Hukam Chand s/o Late Sh. Bhag Raj and thus the same is not maintainable. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part, and the Opposite Parties had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. None has turned up on behalf of both of the parties. On going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.
8. We have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
10. This Commission has perused the record of the case of the judgment passed by the learned District Commission-II which had allowed the complaint. In the present case,
    Sh. Kuldeep Chand the respondent, assuming himself to be sole owner of installed water and sewerage connection in Property No.2051, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh, kept on paying the water and sewerage charges and tariff and got the bills in his name. The Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh has levied commercial charges with effect from May, 2010 giving a reason that construction activity on the area owned by the respondent was going on, whereas the respondent had given his affidavit to the Municipal Corporation on 31.08.2010 saying that the said construction activity has henceforth completed and hence requested for change of water tariff from commercial to domestic usage. However, Municipal Corporation could not accede to his request till April 2017 and the authorities of the Municipal Corporation kept on sending water supply tariff bills to the respondent, on commercial charges till April 2017, despite his intimation, which is a clear cut abuse of power at the hands of the appellants.
11. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Commission, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
13. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

10.09.2021           

 

                                                                      Sd/-

                                                             

                        [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                Sd/-

 [PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

 [RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

 

GP