DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.142 of 09-04-2013
Decided on 27-08-2013
Vijay Gupta & Sons Multiplex Pvt. Ltd., 2032/A. The Mall, Bathinda, through its Managing Director Dr.Vijay Gupta aged about 70 years.
........Complainant
Versus
Municipal Corporation, Bathinda, through its Commissioner.
.......Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.J.D Nayyar, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite party: Sh.Lalit Garg, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a body corporate and is owner of the building bearing M.C No.2032/A, The Mall, Bathinda, the said building was constructed by him in the year 2004 after getting the site plan sanctioned from the opposite party and paying the house tax. The complainant never received any bill from the opposite party regarding the sewerage connection at any stage. On 27.9.2012, the complainant Dr.Vijay Gupta received a call from the office of the opposite party for the payment of the sewerage bill amount, he requested its concerned officials that he is out of station and told that on his return back on 3.10.2012, the payment of the sewerage connection, if any, due against him be paid. The complainant also requested the opposite party, being a corporate that there was no cash available and the signing authority of the cheque etc. is also with him and he would make the payment of the sewerage connection after returning back to Bathinda but the opposite party did not pay any heed to his requests. The opposite party has blocked the sewerage of the complainant, due to this the occupants of the building in question suffered the loss. The sewerage emitting foul smell, as a result, it became very difficult for the occupants to be present in the said building, they started harassing the complainant by making phone calls time and again to get the sewerage connection restored with immediate effect but he was out of station and could not be able to return back to Bathinda before 3.10.2012. After coming back to Bathinda on 3.10.2012, the complainant immediately visited the office of the opposite party and inquired about the sewerage bill but it has not issued any bill to him. Under the compelled circumstances, the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.41,040/- to the opposite party vide cheque No.115383 dated 3.10.2012 and the same was received by its officials vide receipt No.7187 dated 3/4.10.2012 and it is mentioned in the said receipt that the payment is for the period from 1.1.2004 to 31.12.2012. The opposite party has no right to recover the amount of arrears beyond the period of last 3 years but as per the verbal disclosure by its officials, the opposite party has charged the arrears w.e.f 1.1.2004 i.e. for the period of more than 8 years. The complainant has written the letters on dated 10.10.2012 and 18.10.2012 to the opposite party for issuing the sewerage bill to him but it has failed to issue the same and has postponed the matter on one or the other pretext. No prior intimation or notice was issued to the complainant by the opposite party before blocking his sewerage, even the bill has not been issued to him till date by the opposite party. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite party to refund the entire amount of Rs.41,040/- alongwith cost and compensation.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite party. The opposite party after appearing before this Forum has filed its written statement and pleaded that as per its record, the building M.C No.2032A (old No.2047) stands in the name of Dr.Vijay Kumar and is recorded for house only. The complainant has not given any intimation or submitted any document with regard to the ownership of the property in his name. The dispute is regarding the non payment of the sewerage charges of the building in question that is being used by the complainant for the commercial purposes. The change of use of the sewerage connection in the property from the residential to commercial has not been reported or intimated by the complainant to the concerned branch of the opposite party. As per the record available with the opposite party, the abovesaid building is owned by Dr.Vijay Kumar and is recorded as residential house No.2032A in SW-1 and is entered at sewerage connection No.698 in ledger No.27/10. The area of the property is less than 125 sq. yards and as per scheme of the State Government, the water and sewerage charges are not liable to be received from the residential properties having area less than 125 sq. yards, however the owners of the commercial buildings of any such area and residential buildings having area more than 125 sq. yards are liable to pay the water and sewerage charges/bills. Dr.Vijay Kumar got the water and sewerage connection in his commercial building by mentioning the same as residential. The water and sewerage bills recovery team of the opposite party inspected the building of Dr.Vijay Kumar on 27.9.2012 and found that there were 6 sewerage seats being used for the commercial purposes in it. Necessary intimation was given to Dr.Vijay Kumar on his mobile phone and he stated that he is out of station and would pay the water and sewerage bill after return on 3rd or 4th October, 2012. Thereafter the recovery team again visited the building of Dr.Vijay Kumar on 3.10.2012, he admitted that the said building is being used for the commercial purposes and as per rules and regulations, he is liable to pay the water and sewerage charges from 1.1.2004 till date and accordingly a demand was prepared at the spot and after satisfying, Dr.Vijay Kumar issued a cheque No.115383 dated 3.10.2012 for Rs.41,040/- and its receipt was issued in the name of Dr.Vijay Kumar S/o Ram Sarup R/o # 2032A, Mall Road, Bathinda. The opposite party denied that the sewerage of the property of Dr.Vijay Kumar was ever blocked or any loss has been caused to the occupants of the said building by the opposite party. Since the sewerage of the property of Dr.Vijay Kumar was never blocked, so there is no question of emitting any foul smell. The sewerage charges are released quarterly and the rate of sewerage charges for 4 seats is Rs.280/- per month and charges for additional seats are Rs.50/- per seat per month for the commercial buildings and accordingly Dr.Vijay Kumar is liable to pay Rs.1140/- quarterly and Rs.4560/- per year. Dr.Vijay Kumar was not paying the sewerage bill on the pretext that his building is residential and is constructed in the area of less than 125 sq. yards, rather it is commercial in nature and is being used for the commercial purposes and every owner of the commercial building of any measurement is liable to pay the water and sewerage charges.
3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. Admitted facts of the parties are that the complainant is owner of the building bearing M.C No.2032/A, The Mall, Bathinda.
6. The disputed facts are that the complainant has never received any sewerage bill since the construction of the abovesaid building from the year 2004 till date. On 27.9.2012, the complainant Dr.Vijay Gupta has received a call from the office of the opposite party for the payment of the sewerage bill amount, he requested its concerned officials that he is out of station and told them after coming back on 3.10.2012, the payment of the sewerage connection, if any, due against him be paid. The officials of the opposite party have blocked the sewerage of the complainant, due to this, the occupants of the building in question suffered the loss. The sewerage emitting foul smell, as a result, it became very difficult for the occupants to be present in the abovesaid building. After coming back to Bathinda on 3.10.2012, the complainant immediately visited the office of the opposite party and inquired about the sewerage bill but the opposite party has not issued any bill to him and verbally told him that the amount of Rs.41,040/- is due against him. Under the compelled circumstances, the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.41,040/- to the opposite party vide cheque No.115383 dated 3.10.2012 and the receipt No.7187 dated 3/4.10.2012 was issued to him for the period from 1.1.2004 to 31.12.2012. Prior to this, no notice or bill has been sent to the complainant for the recovery of the abovesaid amount. Moreover the opposite party cannot demand the abovesaid amount after the lapse of 3 years, whereas it has raised the demand of Rs.41,040/- for the period from 1.1.2004 to 3.10.2012 i.e. after the lapse of 8 years and the complainant deposited the same under the compelling circumstances.
7. On the other hand the submission of the opposite party is that Dr.Vijay Kumar was not paying the sewerage charges on the pretext that his building is residential and is constructed in the area of less than 125 sq. yards. As per the rules & regulations, where the area of the property is less than 125 sq. yards and as per scheme of the State Government, the water and sewerage charges are not liable to be received from the residential properties having area less than 125 sq. yards, however the owners of the commercial buildings of any such area and residential buildings having area more than 125 sq. yards are liable to pay the water and sewerage charges/bills. The complainant has not given any intimation or submitted any document with regard to ownership of the property in his name. The change of use of sewerage connections in the property from the residential to commercial has not been reported or intimated by the complainant to the concerned branch of the opposite party. As per the record available with the opposite party, the abovesaid building is owned by Dr.Vijay Kumar and is recorded as residential house No.2032A in SW-1 and is entered at sewerage connection No.698 in ledger No.27/10, whereas 6 sewer seats are installed in the said building and are being used for the commercial purposes. The sewerage charges are released quarterly and the rate of sewerage charges for 4 seats is Rs.280/- per month and charges for additional seats is Rs.50/- per seat per month for the commercial buildings and accordingly Dr.Vijay Kumar is liable to pay Rs.1140/- quarterly and Rs.4560/- per year.
8. The complainant in the very first paragraph of his complaint mentioned that “the complainant is a body corporate and is owner of the building bearing M.C No.2032/A, The Mall, Bathinda. Dr.Vijay Gupta is the Managing Director of the complainant and is managing the affairs of the complainant......”
The very first para reveals that the said building bearing M.C No.2032/A is being run for the commercial purposes, not for the residential purposes.
9. A perusal of Ex.C2 shows that the business is being run in the name and style of Vijay Gupta & Sons Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. The site plan Ex.C18 of the building bearing M.C No.2032/A reveals that this is the proposed plan of hall of M/s Vijay Children Hospital Pvt. Ltd, owner Dr.Vijay Gupta, House No.2032-A, The Mall, Bathinda. The site plan has been got prepared on 28.5.2004 and vide Ex.C17 the said property has been changed from M/s Vijay Children Hospital Pvt. Ltd to Vijay Gupta & Sons Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. Initially, the complainant has got the sewerage connection for the residential purpose but it has never been converted/transferred into the commercial purpose, whereas 6 number of seats are installed in the abovesaid building thus the demand raised by the opposite party is legal and valid. As per the rules and regulations, the commercial properties are liable to pay the water and sewerage charges. Accordingly, the amount was calculated for 4 seats Rs.280/- per month and for additional seats Rs.50/- per seat, per month for the commercial buildings and accordingly Dr.Vijay Kumar is liable to pay Rs.1140/- quarterly and Rs.4560/- per year.
10. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, thus this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost as the complainant has never got converted his residential building into commercial building, whereas he is using the aforesaid building for the commercial purposes.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum
27-08-2013
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
