DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/103 of 18.5.2015

                                      Decided on:        10.11.2015

Gurmeet Singh (aged about 37 years) son of Arjan Singh, resident of House No.211, Jagdish Colony, Patiala 98723-90615. 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.      Municipal Corporation, Patiala through its Commissioner.

2.      Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala.

                                                                   …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

Present:

For the complainant:       Sh.Devi Dass Sharma , Advocate

For Ops:                           Sh.R.K.Goel,Advocate              

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant is the holder of water and sewerage connection bearing account No.GSK 389-L- 4-P-179, installed at his house No.211 situate in Jagdish Colony, Patiala. The complainant had paid the bills for the consumption of the water and of the sewerage connection upto 17.4.2015. However, the Ops issued bill no.47 dated 5.5.2015 for the period 16.3.2005 to 31.12.2009 and further upto 31.3.2015 for Rs.8988/-wrongly and illegally.
2. It is alleged by the complainant that he had not received any notice from the Ops that the bill for the period 16.3.2015 to 31.3.2015 was due so that he could give a reply to the Ops regarding the payment of the bills. Under the provisions of law, the amount regarding the charges for water supply and sewerage connection , if due, can not be  recovered for more than a period of four years. The complainant visited the office of the Ops and stated that nothing was due against him and that the bill had been issued wrongly and therefore, the same should be returned. He also showed the receipts regarding the payment of the previous bills but to no effect. On enquiry made from the office of the Ops regarding the bill in question, it was disclosed that the same pertained to the sewerage charges only and not to the water supply charges. Since from the date of the installation of the connection of the water supply and sewerage connection, only one bill was being received by the complainant and the same contained the charges for the water supply and of sewerage connection and that separate bills for water supply and sewerage connection were never received by the complainant .The bill dated 5.5.2015 is also printed with the bill being for water supply and sewerage and not for sewerage connection only. Even if, it is presumed that the complainant had not made payment of the sewerage connection charges for the period 16.3.2005 to 31.3.2015, why the officials had remained mum for such a long period and why the bills or a notice were not issued to the complainant and why his sewerage connection was not disconnected. The lapse of the Ops in this regard is said to be a negligence and unfair trade practice. Accordingly the complainant has brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to withdraw the bill in question; to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant and further to award a sum of Rs.2000/-  towards the costs of the complaint.
3. On notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written version. It is the plea taken up by the ops that the complainant alone is not the consumer of the water supply and sewerage connection no.GSK 389- L-4-P- 179 and the said connection was released in favor of Smt Leela Rajpaul and Gurmit Singh s/o Arjan Singh of 11 Jagdish Colony, Patiala .It is denied that the complainant had paid the bills for the consumption of water supply and sewerage connection upto 17.4.2015.Gurmit Singh paid the charges for water supply only upto 31.3.2015, in respect of which the Ops had sent the bill for the period 16.3.2005 to 31.3.2015 @ Rs.50/- per month in respect of 47 months for the period 16.3.2005 to 31.12.2009 and @ Rs.105/- for the period 31.12.2009 to 31.3.2015 for 63 months in all for Rs.8988. The copy of the ledger is also attached alongwith the written version. It is also averred by the Ops that the connection No.GSK/170/L4/P61 ID No.44738 is different from the connection in question.
4. It is also the plea taken up by the Ops that the complainant has concealed the true facts regarding the payment of the two connections upto 17.4.2015.In the month of December when the inspection was made by the officials of the Ops at the spot, it was transpired that the petitioner had illegal sewerage connection and at this notice No.3373 dated 12.12.2013 was sent to the complainant. The complainant requested the Ops to show the receipts regarding the sewerage connection and therefore, the sewerage connection was not disconnected but when further notice/bill was sent to the complainant to deposit the sewerage connection charges, he brought this complaint. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the Ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and his counsel closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Goldy Kalayan, Jr.Asstt. of Op no.1 alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 and closed their evidence.
7. The parties failed to file the written arguments.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
8. The complainant has produced in evidence the following documents showing the payments of the bills received by him from the Ops:  Ex.C2 bill dated 30.9.2014 for the period 30.6.2014 to 30.9.2014 for Rs.315/- for current water charges, Ex.C3 bill dated 31.12.2014 for Rs.315/- for the period 30.9.2014 to 31.12.2014 for current water charges and Ex.C4 bill dated 31.3.2015 for Rs.315/- for the period 31.12.2014 to 31.3.2015 for current water charges.
9. No other bill has been produced by the complainant. The aforesaid three bills  Exs.C2 to C4 are printed with the description “Water/sewerage bill” but there is a classification for making reading of the bill for water and sewerage separately. In the said bills the Ops claimed the current water charges. Had the complainant deposited any amount towards the sewerage charges, it would not have been difficult for him to have produced the bills received by him qua the receipts regarding the payments thereof made by him but no such bills/receipts have been produced by him. On the other hand, the Ops have produced Ex.OP2, the copy of the ledger bearing a/c No.GSK 389/L4P/179 of Smt.Leela Rampaul and Gurmit Singh s/o Arjan Singh of Jagdish Colony, showing a sum of Rs.8988/- due towards the sewerage charges as per the detail given below: 16.3.2005 to 31.12.2009 @ Rs.50/- per month for Rs.2373/- and for the period 31.12.2009 to 31.3.2015 @ Rs.105/- per month for Rs.6615/-. As a matter of fact, the Ops calculated the amount of Rs.2373/- for the period 16.3.2005 to 31.12.2009 wrongly because it would come to Rs.2875/-. The Ops have further produced in evidence Ex.OP4 the copy of the ledger showing the arrear of the sewerage of the aforesaid connection for the period 30.5.2005 to 30.9.2012 @ Rs.50/- per month and then from 30.9.2012 to 31.10.2013 @ Rs.105/- in all for Rs.7580/-.
10. The Ops have also produced Ex.OP5, the copyof the notice dated 12.12.2013 given to Smt.Leela Rampaul and Gurmit Singh s/o Arjan Singh of 11 Jagdish Colony,Patia.a having brought to their notice that  they had installed the sewerage connection without the sanction obtained from the Municipal Corporation illegally in violation of  Section 213 of the Municipal Corporation Act,1976 and they were directed to get the connection regularized failing which sewerage connection will be disconnected. The said notice was reported to have been refused to be accepted by the noticees. The complainant has not lead any evidence that he had got the sewerage connection installed after having obtained the sanction from the Ops and therefore, we have to believe the plea taken up by the Ops in this regard, going to show that the complainant had never deposited the sewerage charges for the period as shown in the impugned bill,Ex.C1.
11. It is the plea taken up by the complainant that the Ops could not claim the arrears beyond a period of four years but the learned counsel for the complainant failed to show us any provisions of law which debars the Ops to recover the arrears of the sewerage charges beyond the period of four years. It was submitted by Sh.Devi Dass Sharma, the learned counsel for the complainant that under the Limitation Act,1963 a period of three years is provided for the recovery of moveable property. It was submitted that the Municipal Corporation is not a State Govt. nor it has been claimed as such by the Ops so that it would take the shelter under Article 112 given in the schedule  to the Limitation Act,1963 so as to claim a limitation of 30 years for filing any suit by or on behalf of the State Govt. It was also submitted by Sh.Sharma that before the Ops issued the impugned bill Ex.C1 dated 20.5.2015, no notice had been given to the complainant disclosing the amount due and payable by the complainant towards sewerage charges. The Ops could at the most recover the arrears of the sewerage charges for a period of three years immediately falling due before the issuance of the impugned notice Ex.C1.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops could not show us any provisions contained under Municipal Corporation Act,1976, which may provided for the recovery of the arrears of the sewerage charges for a period beyond three years especially when no bills were issued earlier before the issuance of the bill.
13. We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that the claim of Rs.8988/- raised by the Ops vide impugned bill,Ex.C1 dated 5.5.2015 for the period 16.3.2005 to 31.3.2015 cannot be up held as a whole because the Ops could raise the bill for a period of three years falling due immediately  before the issuance of the impugned notice. They could raise the claim for the period 4.5.2012 to 5.5.2015. In other words they could raise the claim for Rs.3780/-.We therefore, accept the claim partly and direct the Ops to  recover only Rs.3780/- against the impugned bill. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs because it is the duty of a citizen to pay for the services obtained from the Local Govt., may be unauthorisedly.

Dated: 10.11.2015

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President