Haryana

Karnal

CC/541/2020

Indu Bala - Complainant(s)

Versus

Municipal Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

Mukesh Chaudhary

20 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 541 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.01.12.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:20.12.2023

 

Indu Bala wife of late Shri Lajpat Rai, Shop No.70, Mughal Canal, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Municipal Corporation, through Sub Divisional Engineer, Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite party

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, as amended up-to-date.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh…….….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Mukesh Chaudhary, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Amit Gupta, counsel for OP

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:  

 

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant had purchased an SCO plot bearing nO.70, situated at Mughal Canal, Karnal and applied for water connection on 10.10.2008 for the construction of shop which was completed within four months. The complainant used the water connection for four months only as such, no meter was installed at the spot. Thereafter, complainant requested the OP to disconnect the water connection as there was no further need of water. Hence, the OP disconnected the water connection on the request of complainant. The complainant shocked and surprised to receive a hefty water bill from the OP to the tune of Rs.99,829/- on 25.09.2019 after more than 11 years. The complainant approached the OP but to no effect. On 12.03.2020, the complainant moved an application before CM window. Thereafter, officials of the OP assured that the impugned bill will be corrected. On 27.07.2020, the OP again sent an excessive water bill of Rs.1,10,532/- illegally and unlawfully inspite of the assurance on the part of OP that they will rectify the water bill as per actual and factual position at the spot. Further, as per the policy of Haryana Government the monthly bill for water supply per connection shall be charged as Rs.100/- per connection which comes to Rs.1200/- per connection per year. If the consumer does not pay the bill for six months, the same be disconnected. Thus, there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version by raising several preliminary objections regarding bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, suppression of true and material facts, estoppel, etc. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had obtained a water/sewerage connection in respect of the shop in question from Public Health Engineering Department. The complainant failed to pay the amount of bills in respect of the water/sewerage connection provided to her and as such a huge amount has become due against her. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel or the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Indu Bala, Ex.CW1/A, copy of water bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, copy of application moved to CM window Ex.C4, copy of application for rectifying the bill Ex.C5, copy of CM grievances redressal system Ex.C6, copy of photographs Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 and closed on 23.08.2022, evidence by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Sunil Bhalla M.E. Municipal Corporation, Karnal as Ex.OP1/A and copies of bills Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 copy of notification Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 19.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that the complainant has used the water connection only for four months and thereafter he disconnected the same and after disconnection of the same has not received any bill and now very surprisingly after a gap of  more than 11 years she has received the bill for an amount of Rs.1,10,532/-, which is illegal and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint. Learned counsel for complainant placed reliance on the judgment titled as Ujjal Singh Lamba Versus State of Punjab and others 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) 554, Municipalcorporation, Bathinda Versus Parmeshwari Devi Regular Second Appeal No.118 of 2004 and Bansal Industries Gases (Bihar) Ltd. Versus State of Jharkhand and others (2009) AIR Jharkhand 104.  

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as the complainant has not impleaded Public Health Department as party in the present complaint. He further argued that complainant neither a consumer of the OP nor the dispute raised by the complainant vide the present complaint fall within the ambit of a consumer dispute and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.             The complainant has alleged that she had got installed a water connection in his SCO on 10.10.2008. The complainant had used the said water connection for four months only. Thereafter, complainant got disconnected the same as the complainant was no more required the said connection.

10.           Before going to the merits of the case, firstly we decide whether the complainant falls under the ambit of ‘consumer’ or not as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?

11.           The consumer is defined in Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which is reproduced as under:-

2(7) “Consumer” means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promise or partly paid and partly promises, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.” or

(ii)  hires or avails of  any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who(hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes.

Explanation- For the purposes of this clause-

(a) the expression “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.”

(b) the expressions “buys any goods” and “hires or avails any services” include offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing;

12.           In the present complaint, the alleged water connection was issued by the Public Health Engineering Department and the complainant had made requisite payment for installation of the water connection to the said department. There is nothing on file that the complainant had paid or had promised to pay any consideration to the OP for the alleged water connection. Hence, the complainant does not fall under the ambit of consumer.

13.           For the sake of arguments, if it is presumed that complainant falls under the ambit of consumer, in that eventuality, the complainant is not entitled for any relief because the complainant has not impleaded Public Health Engineering Department as party in the present complaint.

14.           The complainant had applied for the said connection to the Public Health Engineering Department in the year 2008 and deposited requisite amount at that time because the Public Health Engineering Department was under the obligation to provide the water/sewerage connection. The complainant has not impleaded Public Health Engineering Department as a party in the present complaint who had installed the said water connection and to whom the application for disconnection of the said connection was moved by the complainant as alleged by him.  Hence, it goes unproved whether the complainant had moved an application for disconnecting the said water connection or not.  Thus, the complaint of the complainant is also bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.

15.           Thus, in view of the above discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach before the Competent Authority/Civil Court for her grievances, if so desired. The limitation would not be a rider in filing a fresh case before the competent Court of law. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:20.12.2023     

                                                                   President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

           Member                          Member