Punjab

Sangrur

CC/532/2014

Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Municipal Council - Opp.Party(s)

Shri SS ratol

08 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    532

                                                Instituted on:      08.09.2014

                                                Decided on:       08.04.2015

 

Raj Kumar son of Darri Ram, R/o Gandhi Nagar, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

Municipal Council, Bhawanigarh through its Executive Officer.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Advocate.

For Opposite party     :       Shri Satpal Sharma, Advocate.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Raj Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the OP by getting water connection bearing account number 2284 and the complainant has been paying the bills regularly to the OP.

 

2.             The grievance of the complainant is that since the last six years, the water supply is not coming in the Gandhi Nagar locality and the inhabitants of the locality are not utilising the water. It is further averred that Gandhi Nagar locality is situated at the higher side (at height) and the water is not coming in the taps of the complainant and the inhabitants.  Further case of the complainant is that the complainant approached the OP along with other inhabitants and apprised about the low pressure of water, but nothing happened. It has been further averred by the complainant that the OP issued a bill number 045 dated 17.2.2014 by raising the demand of Rs.17,398/-, which is said to be wrong and illegal. It is further averred that since the water was not coming into the taps, as such due to this problem, the OP installed a new motor for this purpose in the second week of June, 2014, but the OP is demanding the bill for which the water was not coming and no facility was provided. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to withdraw the bill/notice number 045 dated 17.02.2014 for Rs.17,398/- and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             After receipt of complaint, notice was issued to the OP. The OP appeared and filed written reply. In reply, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious in nature. It is further averred that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and maintainability of the complaint has also been challenged. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is having a water connection as mentioned above.   The case of the OP is that the complainant has not been depositing the water charges, despite repeated demands of the OP. It is denied that the complainant ever approached the OP to state that there is no water supply in the taps or there was low pressure of water.  However, it is admitted by the OP that bill number 045 dated 17.02.2014 for Rs.17,398/-  has been issued. Out of this, an amount of Rs.17,208/- is of previous balance outstanding amount towards complainant along with late fee charges and amount of Rs.190/- is bill for the period from 1.10.2013 to 31.12.2013. It is stated that the Op has also issued the bills thereafter, but the same have not been paid.  It is further averred that if there is any complaint against the water flow, it can be removed. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of report of newspaper, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 report of local commissioner, Ex.C-4 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.Op-1 to Ex.OP-2 copies of bills, Ex.OP-3 copy of test report, Ex.OP-4 copy of letter, Ex.OP-5 copy of application, Ex.OP-6 affidavit, Ex.OP-7 copy of site plan, Ex.OP-8 to Ex.OP-9 affidavits and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant has got installed a water connection bearing account number 2284 from the OP. 

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that since there was no water supply in the taps of the complainant, the OP despite that issued bill number 045 dated 17.2.2014 by raising the demand of Rs.17,398/-.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that since the complainant had not used any water from the OP, as such, he is not liable to pay any charges for the same and has sought withdrawal of the bill dated 17.2.2014 demanding an amount of Rs.17,398/-.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that the complainant has filed the false complaint only to avoid the liability to pay the dues for use of water.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the OP that the complainant never lodged any complaint with the OP regarding the low pressure of water in the taps.   The learned counsel for the OP has also contended that the complainant is not a consumer as the OP discharges its statutory duties as enjoined upon it by the law and further stated that the water and sewerage charges cannot be treated as service for consideration for a consumer.  Reliance can also be placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission pronounced in Bimal Kishore Sharma vs. Municipal Council, Sangrur, First Appeal No. 1524 of 2010, decided on 4.8.2014, wherein it has been held that the complainant is not a consumer under the Municipal Corporation, as the Municipal Corporation discharges its statutory duties as enjoined upon it by the law. It has been further held that the Municipal Corporation discharges its statutory duties as enjoined upon it by the law and that the payment of sewerage charges to the statutory body of Municipal Corporation is in the statutory function, like the tax and the payment of tax cannot be treated as service for consideration for a consumer.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer in view of the legal position explained above.  The Hon’ble National Commission in Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Durg (C.G.) versus P.S.Chauhan 2014(1) CLT 493 has held that  by merely paying tax to municipal corporation, it cannot be said that complainant has hired the services for consideration and complainant does not fall within the purview of Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

8.             It is worth mentioning here that earlier on the same facts, this Forum had allowed complaint number 399 of 2013 and 400 of 2013 titled as Dharam Pal vs. Municipal Council, Bhawanigarh and Ruldu Ram vs. Municipal council, Bhawanigarh, respectively on 6.5.2014, but at that time the ruling i.e. Municipal Corporation, Dhuri vs. Charanjit Rice Mills II (1999) CPJ 483, was not brought in our notice, wherein it has been held that the complainant is not a consumer under the Municipal Corporation.  As such, now we are deciding the case accordingly in view of the citation Bimal Kishore Sharma versus Municipal Council Sangrur (supra).

9.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplies to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 8, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member