Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/102/2015

Usha Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Municipal Corporation Chandigarh - Opp.Party(s)

In person

02 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/102/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	16/02/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	02/07/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Usha Sharma w/o Sh. Janak Raj Sharma, resident of Flat No.B-227, Kendriya Vihar, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, through

 

1. Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Public Health Division No.3, Chandigarh.

 

2. Sub Divisional Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Public Health Sub Division No.9, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS. SURJEET KAUR           PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OPs	:	Mrs. Smriti Dhir, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

          The facts which are necessary for the adjudication of the present Complaint are conceptualized hereinafter. The Complainant was sanctioned a domestic independent water connection by the Public Health Department at her . On 13.06.2014, a Challaning Officer (Sub Divisional Engineer, M.C. Sub Division No.9) visited (Annexure-IA) and inspected the top floor at around 7:40 am of block comprising Flat Nos. 225-233 and issued a challan of Rs.2000/- to be recovered through water supply bill on the ground that a notice has already been issued on 21.04.2014 through the Society for overflow of overhead tanks (Annexure-IB). It has been alleged that no such notice was served upon the Complainant either by the Challaning Officer or by the Society. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties on 25.06.2014 by way of representation (Annexure-II), but no action was taken to ventilate her grievance. The Complainant also sought information under the RTI Act, 2005 vide Annexure-III on 13.12.2014. In response whereof, the Complainant was informed vide Annexure-IV dated 20.01.2015 that the information sought by her is not available with the Executive Engineer. It has been further alleged that no enquiry was conducted and no information was available in the records of the Executive Engineer except the issue of notice to the Society. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, admitted that in order to check the misuse of water in the summer season, during one of the inspections, it came to the notice of the SDE-cum-Coordinator that in the premises in dispute, the residents of the Society have made an arrangement clandestinely. The water overflow pipe of overhead water tanks disposed of the drinking water in drain directly and all overflow pipe of each tank is connected with one pipe so that wastage of water is not visible at the ground floor (Annexure R-2). The said situation was intimated to the President and Members of the Society during the meeting and even an inspection was conducted, during which it was found that most of the water tanks were overflowing. In view of this, a notice dated 21.04.2014 was issued to stop the misuse of water under the signatures of the General Secretary of the Society (Annexure R-3). After issuing of notice sufficient time was given to the consumers for rectification of fault, but when they did not rectify the same, challan was issued to the defaulters with intimation that the notice has already been issued on 21.04.2014 through Society. It has been asserted that again a notice dated 25.6.2014 was issued on the request of the Coordinator to stop the misuse of water under the signatures of the General Secretary of the Society (Annexure R-5).  Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties and have perused the record. 

 

7.     The case of the Complainant is that on 13.06.2014 as per Annexure-IA a Challaning Officer (Sub Divisional Engineer, MC, Sub Division No.9) visited the place of the Complainant and issued a Challan of Rs.2,000/- to be recovered through water supply bill. Annexure-IB is the notice for residents of the Society, explaining the penalty of Rs.2,000/- to be imposed due to any kind of water wastage. Annexure-II at page no.9 of the Complaint is the letter by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties for mercy due to unjustified issue of Challan alleging overflowing of water storage tank. As per the case of the Complainant, there is no documentary evidence that it was water tank of the house of the Complainant which was overflowing and even the Challaning Officer did not give her any chance to rectify the error, if any. Annexure-III dated 13.12.2014 is the application by the Complainant for the requirement of information under the RTI Act, 2005 regarding the type of action taken by the Opposite Parties to redress her grievance. Annexure-IV at page no.13 is the reply of RTI received by the Complainant.

 

8.     The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that as per Annexure R-1 a public notice was published in various newspapers for the appropriate consumption of water, with the mention of penalty along with disconnection in case of wastage of water.  

 

9.     It is very important to note that Annexure R-1 is the document placed on record by the Opposite Party. There is a Note below this public notice, which is reproduced herein below:-

 

“Note:

(i)  No separate notice will be given for the violation at Sr.No.1 & 2 mentioned above to the consumer for misuse of drinking water.

 

(ii) Notice will be given for the default against Sr.No.3 to 8 mentioned above to get the defect rectified by the Consumer within 02 days, failing which a fine/ penalty amounting to Rs.2,000/- shall be imposed.”

 

 

          From above, it is evidently clear that the Opposite Parties were required to give notice for the default against Sr.No.3 to 8 to get the defect rectified by the Consumer within 02 days, failing which a fine/ penalty amounting to Rs.2,000/- shall be imposed. However, the Opposite Parties as per their own public notice did not provide any such chance to the Complainant to get the defect rectified, if any. Importantly, it is written at note (i) of the said public notice that no separate notice will be given for the misuse of drinking water, for washing of vehicles and court yards etc. or watering of lawns. But this is not the case of the Complainant here. The action taken by the Opposite Parties is contradictory to its own public notice. Moreover, there is no evidence on record showing the overflowing in the form of photograph through Camera or videography of the event. In any case, if water overflowing was there still according to their own terms & conditions, the Opposite Parties had to give two days to the Complainant/Consumer to rectify the same, which they did not give, resulting in undue physical and mental harassment to the Complainant.  

 

10.     In view of the foregoings, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant;

 

[b]  To pay a composite amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, causing mental & physical harassment to the Complainant and towards costs of litigation; 

 

 

11.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above, apart from paying composite payment of Rs.5000/- as in sub-para [b] above, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.

 

12.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced

02^nd July, 2015                          

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER