BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri Patil Vithal Rao, B.Sc., LL.B.,President

Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

              Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),Member

Tuesday, the   23^rd day of April, 2013

CC. No. 11 of 2013

Between:

K. Shanker Goud S/o late Durga Goud,

Age: 60 years, Occ: Pensioner,

R/o H.No. 4-8-71/6,

Manjeeranagar, Sangareddy.                                …. Complainant-in-person

And

The Commissioner,

Municipal Council,

Sangareddy,

Medak district.                                                                   … Opposite party

 This case came up for final hearing before us on 15.04.2013 in the presence of Sri K. Shankar Goud party in person and the opposite party not represented despite notice served hence set exparte. On perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

       O R D E R

(Per se G. Sreenivas Rao, Member)

                   This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to refund excess amount of water tax paid by the complainant @ Rs. 100/- per month since November 2012 and to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- towards mental agony & costs of the litigation.

                   The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant has a water connection bearing No. T4/302 and he had been paying the water bill @ Rs. 50/- per month. All of a sudden, the opposite party started collecting Rs. 150/- per month since November 2012, without notice. This means the billing raised to 3-times which is nothing but looting the consumers. He further lamented, that it would have been better if the monthly bill raised to Rs. 75/-. Subsequently, he asked the concerned authorities of office of opposite party about the sudden raise in billing, but there was no response from them. Thus all the acts of opposite party proved deficiency in service. Adding to the above problem, he has not been receiving the water also. He also represented the matter to the collector, Medak District at Sangareddy. Whereas he had not received any relief as on date. Hence approached the Forum for redressal.

2.       The opposite party has been served with notice but not represented throughout the proceedings, hence set exparte.

3.              The complainant adduced documentary evidence & got marked them as Ex. A1 to A5 along with his affidavit and argued the case orally. He did not submit written arguments.

4.             Now the point for consideration is, Whether the complainant is able to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? If so, what relief?

Point:

5.            The complainant has a municipal water supply connection, for which he has been paying a sum of Rs. 50/- every month. Whereas in the month of November 2012 he had received a water bill three times more than the existing rate i.e., Rs. 150/-, when questioned the authorities concerned, he received no reply. Thereafter he approached collector and filed a petition explaining his grievances, but here also he was disappointed in not receiving relief for the hike in monthly water bill.

6.                In support of his stand he filed documents which were marked as Ex. A1 to A5. The Ex. A1 is the representation (informing irregularities) given to Director, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad in November 2011, along with a Xerox copy of “Sakshi” News paper showing an article published on 07.11.2011 about the 500% hike in property tax. The Ex. A2 is the representation given to the Collector, Medak District-cum-Special Officer Grade I municipality, Sangareddy regarding various irregularities in which para (5) reads, “The public without the permission of the competent authority have taken new tap connection”, causing heavy loss to the income of the municipality. The Ex. A3 is the same copy of the Ex.A1 and the Ex. A4 is the miscellaneous receipt of Municipality, Sangareddy, dt. 20.02.2013 showing the number as T4/302 and an amount of Rs. 150/- collected as water charges for the month of January 2013. The Ex. A5 is the proceedings of Chairperson, Sangareddy municipality vide proceeding No. E/2234/1996 dt. 01.07.1996 showing grant of water service connection (1/2”) to one Sri K. Kailash Goud R/o plot No. 36, Sangareddy, in which, under para (5) the water consumption charges @ Rs. 35/- per month was mentioned.

7.             On serious perusal of the documentary evidence only Ex. A4 which is the receipt showing the address of the complainant as H.No. 4-8-71/6 and Rs. 150/- collected as water charges for the month of January 2013. Whereas the complainant in his complaint submitted that all of a sudden the water bill has been hiked from Rs. 50 to 150 per month i.e., 3 times hike. But to prove his contention, he failed to submit the previous water bills showing that he was charged Rs. 50/- per month for the water consumption. Thus there is no evidence to show that the complainant was paying Rs.50/- per month towards water cess prior to November 2012. Even otherwise this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute pertaining to enhancement of water cess. Further, Ex. A5/ dt. 01.07.1996 is in the name of Sri K. Kailash Goud S/o K, Ramkrishna Goud R/o plot No. 36 with overwriting the name of the complainant. If this is so then Mr K. Shankar Goud, the complainant should be the son of Sri K. Kailash Goud, Whereas in his complaint the cause title shows K. Shankar Goud S/o late Durga Goud R/o 4-8-71/6, Manjeeranagar, Sangareddy. So this Ex. A5 seems to be a tampered document and as such cannot be considered   and is highly objectionable. So the complainant failed to prove his case hence deserves no relief from this forum.

8.             In the above circumstances, the complaint is dismissed and the complainant is warned not to resort to submitting improper information with tampered documents infuture.

                    Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription and correction the order is pronounced by us in the open court today on this the 23^rd day of April, 2013.

       Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                  Sd/-

      MALE MEMBER     LADY MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                 WITNESS EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the complainant:                                                   For the opposite parties:-

                    Sd/-                                 Sd/-                                     Sd/-

      MALE MEMBER                     LADY MEMBER                   PRESIDENT 

Copy to:

1. The Complainant
2. The opposite party
3. Spare Copy