BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 333 of 2015

Date of Institution: 25.05.2015

Date of Decision: 11.03.2016  

Raj Bharti son of Late Sh.Fazal Masih, resident of Mission Compound, Mahan Singh Gate, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Town Hall, Amritsar.  

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11, 12 & 13  of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.S.S.Gill, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.U.K.Gaind, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Raj Bharti  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he has Water Supply and Sewerage connection bearing No.3109-1/17401 from Opposite Party and had been paying the regular bills for the usage of the facilities provided by Opposite Party. The complainant had this connection for the last more than 20-25 years. Opposite Party allotted the work of laying RCC Floor in Mission Compound, Mahan Singh Gate, Amritsar and the complainant had written representations to the Opposite Party  not to lay down the RCC Floor in Mission Compound, Mahan Singh Gate, Amritsar vide letter dated 22.10.2001 and subsequent letter dated 14.3.2002. That due to laying of RCC Floor in Mission Compound, Mahan Singh Gate, Amritsar and illegal and unauthorized constructions raised by the other dwellers of Mission Compound in connivance with Opposite Party, the water connection pipe line of the complainant suffered damage and his private sewerage connection pipe was totally broken by the Opposite Party. The complainant approached Opposite Party to restore the water supply to the residence of complainant on 25.3.2010 and the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.7200/- and further Rs.735/- as shifting charges and these amounts were deposited by the complainant vide receipt No. 5372-50 dated 29.3.2010 and vide receipt No. 5372-59 dated 12.4.2010. Then the Opposite Party provided the water supply and sewerage connection to the complainant in April, 2010. Complainant further alleges that he incurred Rs.5500/- for repair which included  patch repair, labour charges, sand/ bajri, carriage and cartage, etc. The complainant purchased the water pipes, joints, etc. Iron pipe as cover in the main road, ferule and other accessories for an amount of Rs.7450/- which was only due to negligence, carelessness and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.   Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to compensate the complainant alongwith the amount deposited and spent by the complainant, alongwith interest from the date of deposit till its realization. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the disputed payment of Rs.7200/- and Rs.735/- was made to the Opposite Party by the complainant in the year 2010 and the present complaint at this stage is not sustainable in the eyes of law being time barred. Moreover, the present complaint does not lie before this Forum as the Opposite Party is collecting water/ sewerage charges as tax as per provisions of Punjab Municipal Corporation Act and no complaint lies regarding payment of tax.  No illegal and unauthorized construction was raised in Mission Compound in connivance with Opposite Party as alleged.  It is further incorrect that due to alleged construction the water connection pipe and private sewerage pipe of the complainant was totally damaged. In fact, a complaint was received from the complainant seeking permission from the Opposite Party to dig on the public road as there was fault in his water connection. Accordingly, after preparing estimate of damage to be caused to the pucca road as well as kacha  road, the complainant was directed to deposit Rs.7200/- which he deposited without any protest and objection. Moreover, Rs.735/- was deposited towards shifting of connection as shifting charges from one supply line to other supply line and for which the complainant was legally bound to deposit shifting charges.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C18 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Tilak Raj, XEN Ex.OP1  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that  the complainant has Water Supply and Sewerage Connection bearing No.3109-1/17401 from Opposite Party. Complainant submitted that Opposite Party allotted work of laying  RCC Floor in Mission Compound, Mahan Singh Gate, Amritsar. Complainant wrote  representations to the Opposite Party  not to lay down the RCC Floor in Mission Compound, Mahan Singh Gate, Amritsar vide letter dated 22.10.2001 Ex.C4 and  letter dated 14.3.2002 Ex.C5, but the Opposite Party  laid the RCC Floor in Mission Compound, Mahan Singh Gate, Amritsar in collusion with other dwellers of Mission Compound, as a result of which, the water connection pipe line of the complainant suffered damage and his private sewerage connection pipe was totally broken. The complainant approached Opposite Party to restore the water supply to the residence of complainant on 25.3.2010, but the  complainant was asked to deposit Rs.7200/- and further Rs.735/- as shifting charges to provide the water supply and sewerage connection to the complainant. The complainant  deposited  said amount with the Opposite Party vide receipt  dated 29.3.2010 (Ex.C7) of Rs.7200/- and  receipt dated 12.4.2010 (Ex.C8) of Rs.735/- and then the Opposite Party provided the water supply and sewerage connection to the complainant in April, 2010. Complainant further submitted  that he incurred Rs.5500/- for repairs which included  patch repair, labour charges, sand/ bajri, carriage and cartage, etc. The complainant  applied for information under RTI regarding the site plan for sanctioning of water connection, but the Opposite Party informed that no site plan is needed for sanctioning of water connection. Complainant submitted that Opposite Party is liable to refund this amount to the complainant because the water supply connection of the complainant was charged due to laying of RCC Floor in Mission Compound, Mahan Singh Gate, Amritsar  and not due to the fault on the part of the complainant. The complainant approached the Opposite Party to refund this amount, but they did not do so.   Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party is that the disputed payment of Rs.7200/- and Rs.735/- was made by the complainant to the Opposite Party in the year 2010, whereas the present complaint has been filed in the year 2015 which is hopelessly barred by limitation. Opposite Party did the work of laying RCC Floor in Mission Compound, Mahan Singh Gate, Amritsar, but they denied that due to said construction, the water connection pipe and private sewerage pipe of the complainant was damaged. Opposite Party received the complaint from the complainant to dig on the public road as there was fault in his water connection. Resultantly, estimate of damage to be caused to the pucca road as well as kacha  road were prepared and   the complainant was directed to deposit Rs.7200/- which he deposited without any protest and objection. The complainant also deposited Rs.735/- towards shifting of connection as shifting charges from one supply line to other supply line. Resultantly, the water supply and sewerage connection of the complainant was shifted from one supply line to other supply line on the request of the complainant. So, the complainant was   legally bound to deposit shifting charges and he deposited the same without any protest and objection and that too in March/ April, 2010 vide receipts Ex.C7 and Ex.C8. Thereafter, the complainant never raised any protest/ objection. However, in the year 2014 the complainant filed a complaint i.e. complaint No. 722 of 2014 in the month of April, 2014 which was withdrawn by the complainant with permission to file fresh one after removing technical defect and he was allowed to do so vide order dated 27.5.2014 by this Forum and the complainant  filed the present complaint on 25.5.2015 on the same ground without adding or abstracting anything. So, if it is presumed that the complainant filed a complaint in April, 2014 that too was after the lapse of period of 4 years as the cause of action accrued to the complainant in the month of March/ April, 2010 and the complaint was filed by the complainant in April, 2014 after a lapse of period of 4 years. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and without merit, nor the complainant could put forward any genuine cause for condonation of delay in filing the present complaint. He has simply stated that he is heart patient, but the complainant did not produce any medical record that during this period he was suffering from any heart disease.  Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that  the work of laying RCC Floor in Mission Compound, Mahan Singh Gate, Amritsar was done by the Opposite Party in the year 2002. The complainant could not produce any evidence that due to this construction work, the water supply and sewerage connection of the complainant was damaged, rather for the first time, in the year 2010 the complainant approached Opposite Party with the complaint for seeking permission  from the Opposite Party to dig on the public road as there was fault in his water supply connection. Resultantly,  after  making the estimate of damage to be caused to the pucca road as well as kacha  road,  the complainant was directed to deposit Rs.7200/- which he deposited vide receipt Ex.C7 dated 29.3.2010 without any protest and objection. As the complainant wanted to get his water supply and sewerage connection shifted from one supply line to other supply line, resultantly, the complainant was directed to deposit Rs.735/- as fee regarding shifting of connection/ shifting charges from one supply line to other supply line and the complainant deposited Rs.735/- with the Opposite Party vide receipt Ex.C8 dated 12.4.2010. Thereafter, the dig out work was done and the road was damaged and the water supply and sewerage connection of the complainant was shifted from one supply line to other supply line in April, 2010. Thereafter, the complainant never complained about his water supply and sewerage connection nor raised any objection for depositing the aforesaid amount with the Opposite Party. The complainant filed a complaint No. 272 of 2014 in April, 2014 which was withdrawn by the complainant on the ground that there was some technical defect and the complainant wants to file  fresh complaint on the same cause of action after removing the technical defect. Resultantly, that request of the complainant was allowed by this Forum vide order dated 27.5.2014 and the complainant filed the present complaint on 25.5.2015 i.e. after a lapse of period of one year and that too without any change in the said complaint which shows that earlier complaint might have been withdrawn by the complainant because that was time barred. So if it can be presumed that present complaint is continuation of that earlier complaint No. 272 of 2014 which was filed by the complainant in April, 2014, whereas the complainant deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs.7200/- and Rs.735/- vide receipts Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 dated 29.3.2010 and 12.4.2014 respectively. Complainant alleges that Opposite Party has wrongly charged this amount from the complainant. The cause of action accrued to the complainant on 29.3.2010 and 12.4.2010, he could file the complaint upto 12.4.2012, but the complainant filed the earlier complaint in April, 2014 which was got dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file fresh complaint. So, the complaint filed by the complainant is hopelessly time barred. Complainant submitted ground for condonation of delay that he was suffering from heart ailment, so he could not file the complaint within limitation. This plea of the complainant is not tenable because the complainant could not produce any medical record that he was suffering from heart ailment during this period from 2010 to 2014 or in 2015. The complainant also could not produce any other evidence to prove that he was restrained from filing the present complaint due to the reasons which were beyond the control of the complainant. Resultantly, we hold that the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed on this ground only.
9. Apart from this, the complainant deposited the aforesaid amount with the Opposite Party for digging the pacca road as well as kacha road and for shifting of the water supply and sewerage connection of the complainant from one supply line to another supply line and the Opposite Party has charged this amount from the complainant as per rules and regulation of the Opposite Party and the complainant deposited this amount vide receipt Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 without any protest/ objection and the water supply and sewerage connection of the complainant was shifted from one supply line to another supply line by the Opposite Party after causing damage/ dig out the pacca as well as kacha road and the Opposite Party was justified in charging the aforesaid amount from the complainant. So, the Opposite Party has charged this amount from the complainant as per rules and regulation of the Opposite Party.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.                  
10. Resultantly, we hold that  the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 11.03.1016.                                                               (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                                                                                                  President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                                      Member                         Member