Punjab

Sangrur

CC/447/2019

Shard Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Municipal Council - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Gurpreet Singh Chatha

07 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 447

 Instituted on:   21.08.2019

                                                                         Decided on:     07.03.2024

 

Shard Jindal son of Sh. Satpal Jindal son of Bhagwan Dass, resident of House No.529, Sector-12, Panchkula (Haryana).

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             Municipal Council, Sangrur through its Executive Officer.

2.             Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Sangrur, Distt. Sangrur through its S.D.E.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant    :       Shri G.S.Chatha, Adv.

For Opp.partyNo.1     :       Shri G.S.Sibia, Adv.

For Opp.party No.2   :        Exparte.

 

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1.             Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties  on the ground that the complainant is a  consumer of the OPs as water connection bearing number 139/5 is running in the name of father of the complainant Shri Satpal son of Shri Bhagwan Dass and the complainant is paying the bills regularly and nothing is due against the complainant. The above said Satpal transferred the property in the name of complainant being his son in the year 2017 and the complainant is using the above said connection being beneficiary. After transfer the property the complainant was in need of no dues certificate for transfer of the said water connection number 139/5 in the name of complainant as such applied for the same but the OP refused to issue the no due certificate and refused to transfer the above said property in the name of complainant and reported that one property relating to Sarad Jindal son of Satpal which is situated at Dhuri Road having water connection number 2112007634 a sum of Rs.39,875/- is outstanding against him, whereas nothing was due against the complainant.  Further case of the complainant is that OP number 2 sent a bill number 2112000000046058 of connection number 2112007634 old consumer number B5/1032 which is running in the name of Jai Naryana son of Khajan Chand for Rs.40,430/-. The above said connection is not in the name of father of the complainant and the father of the complainant has no concern with this connection at all.  Thus, the complainant has stated that this demand of Rs.40,430/- has been illegally raised against the complainant and has prayed for withdraw/quash the amount of bill number 2112000000046058 and also OPs be directed to issue no dues certificate in favour of the complainant and to transfer the water connection number 139/5 in favour of the complainant and also prayed for payment of compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP. On merits, it is admitted that the water connection number 139/5 is running in the name of father of the complainant Shri Satpal son of Sh. Bhagwan Dass and has been paying the bills regularly and nothing is due against the complainant. It has been admitted that the complainant approached the OP for issue to no due certificates and to transfer the said water connection in the name of complainant. It is stated that an amount of Rs.39,875/- is due towards the complainant as when the OP sent the no due certificate form to Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Sangrur, then they made an objection regarding the dues of Rs.39,875/- of the complainant. It is stated that the answering OP has no concern at all with this demand.  Lastly, the OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

3.             Record shows that the OP number 2 did not appear despite service, as such was proceeded against exparte.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1  has not produced any evidence to support the case.

5.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by  the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance. 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the water connection number 139/5 was running in the name of father of the complainant, Satpal son of Shri Bhagwan Dass. It is the case of the complainant that his father Satpal transferred the property in the name of complainant in the year 2017. As such, the complainant approached the OPs for transfer of the water connection bearing number 139/5 in his name and further sought issuance of no dues certificate from the OPs for transfer of the water supply connection in question. It is the case of the complainant that OP number 2 did not issue the no dues certificate instead of that OP number 2 sent a bill number 2112000000046058 of connection number 2112007634 old consumer number B5/1032 which is running in the name of Jai Naryana son of Khajjan Chand for Rs.40,430/- whereas the complainant has no concern with the said connection of Jai Naryana son of Khajjan Chand and the complainant is not liable to pay the said amount of Rs.40,430/- as the said amount does not related to the complainant. It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 2 chose to remain exparte.  To support this contention, the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of receipt issued by the OP number 1 showing charges of Rs.8060/- of water connection number 139/5. Ex.C-2 is the copy of no dues certificate (form) wherein OP number 2 has reported that an amount of Rs.39,875/- is outstanding against water connection number 2112007634. Moreover, three different names are mentioned in the no dues certificate form (Ex.C-2) in column first name is mentioned as Shard Jindal son of Satpal, in column second name is mentioned as Saurav Jindal son of Satpal and in the note name is mentioned as Saurav Kumar son of Satpal, it creates doubts as to whom this document (Ex.C-2) belongs. Ex.C-3 is the copy of bill of account number 2112007634, which relates to Jainarayan son of Khajjan Chand, meaning thereby the complainant Sharad Jindal or his father Satpal has no concern at all with this water connection.  Ex.C-4 is the affidavit of complainant to support this contention in the case. Vide order of this Commission dated 13.3.2020, the OP number 2 was directed to get the disputed amount deposited which is to be deposited by the complainant under protest and also subject to the final outcome of the complaint. Ex.C-6 is the copy of water charges receipt showing deposit of the amount of Rs.43,760/- with the OP number 2 on 04.09.2020 under protest. It is worth mentioning here that the above said amount of Rs.43,760/- were deposited by the complainant under protest with the OP number 2. An endorsement regarding this Commission’s order is mentioned at the foot note of Ex.C-6. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that after deposit of this amount under protest, the OP number 2 issued the complainant no dues certificate.  But, we may mention that the OP number 2 has wrongly raised the demand of Rs.40,430/- from the complainant, whereas this demand is not relating to the complainant or his father Satpal. Moreover, complainant has got deposited the total amount of Rs.43,760/- on 04.09.2020 relating to the bill in question.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP number 2 is liable to refund the said deposited amount of Rs.43,760/- and further the OP number 2 is not  entitled to raise the demand of Jainarayan son of Khajjan Chand (water connection number 2112007634) against the complainant, which is illegal one.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 2 to withdraw the amount of bill number 211200000046058 relating to Jainarayan. We further direct OP number 2 to refund to the complainant the deposited amount of Rs.43,760/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from 04.09.2020 till realisation. We further direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the OP number 2 within a period of sixty days of receipt of copy of this order. 

8.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

9              Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

                        Pronounced.

 

                March 7, 2024.