Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/21/2015

M/Wilson, S/o.Late Madhavan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Depot Manager, Chennai Metropolitan water supply and sewage Board , - Opp.Party(s)

C.Russel Raj

27 Jul 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  14.01.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on: 27.07.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    THIRU.M.UYIRROLI KANNAN, B.B.A., B.L., MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY THE  27^th  DAY OF JULY 2017

 

C.C.NO.21/2015

 

 

 

M.Willson, S/o Late Madhavan,

27/C-2, Seeyalam 1^st Lane,

Villivakkam, Chennai – 49.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. The Depot Manager,

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply

and sewage Board VIII,

No.227, 2^nd Avenue, Near 12^th Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 40.

 

2. The Tahsildar/Sub Collector,

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply

and Sewage Board,

No.227, 2^nd Avenue, near 12^th Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 40.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 29.01.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : C. Russel Raj

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : G. Prakash    

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

This complaint is filed by the complainant claiming to order to refund a sum of Rs.23,568/- and also to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards metal agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The complainant states that he has purchased a portion of property through document No.861 of 2001 dated 14.3.2001from one Mrs.Leelavathi @ Leela constructed area about 60 sq.feet at No.27/C-2, Seeyalam 1^st lane, Villivakkam, Chennai-49. The Complainant is an unemployed and 61 years sick and aged person and he is running petty shop for his livelihood by selling stationary items. The complainant further states that his premises was provided with electricity connection and for that he has been paying the electricity bill without any dues till date.

2. The Complainant has not been provided any water connection or sewage connection to his property. Unexpectedly a notice dated 21.7.2014 was served from the 1^st opposite party demanding to pay an arrears amount of Rs.78,263/- for directing water and sewage connection facility. The Complainant immediately sent a reply dated 2.8.2014 stating that he was not provided any such facility. The second opposite party issued another notice dated 17.12.2014 requiring the Complainant to pay an amount of Rs.83,071/- failing which recovery proceeding will be initiated. The Complainant sent reply to the said notice also. Again he received notice dated 29.12.2014 from the 1^st opposite party and that was also suitably replied by the Complainant.

3. The Complainant was very much disturbed mentally due to the negligent act of the opposite parties demanding to pay an amount towards water and sewage connection. Hence the Complainant filed this complaint claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards metal agony and also to order to refund a sum of Rs.23,568/- with cost of the complaint.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF AND ADOPTED BY THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY:

          The sub matter all the levy of tax is not coming within the purview of the Consumer protection Act. The CMWSS board Madras is concerned the managing director is the authority to sue and  to be sued. The opposite party admits that the Complainant is the owner of the premises at No.27/C-2, Seeyalam 1^st lane, Villivakkam, Chennai-49. The entire premises are having 12 different assessments with different owners. The Complainant is one among the 12 assessment of the premises. This said premise was assessed by the Chennai Corporation for the purpose of property tax. This opposite party did not separately assess the premises for levy of water tax and sewage tax based on the annual value fixed by the Chennai Corporation.

          5. As per existing law of CMWSSP Act 1978, only one water connection will be provided for the group of flat housed in one block. While paying water/sewage charges the flat owners  Associations have to pay their required charges considering each flat. Accordingly the building where the Complainant is in occupation of a portion was provided with one water and sewer connection and all are entitled to avail the services provided by the opposite parties. Since the Complainant building provided with water and sewer connection, the Complainant is liable to pay the charges as demanded by the opposite parties. The amount mentioned in the demand notice is due from the Complainant. It is mandatory on the part of Complainant to pay the amount as per the demand. Therefore, the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and pray to dismiss the complaint with cost.  

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant purchased a portion of property measuring 60 sq.feet from one M/s Leelavathi Alias Leela at No.27/C-2, Seeyalam 1^st lane, Villivakkam, Chennai-49. In the said premises the Complainant is running a petty shop for his livelihood and the premises is having electricity connection and for the said connection he is also paying the electricity bill.

          8. The 1^st opposite party issued Ex.A2 notice dated 21.7.2014 to the Complainant demanding to pay arrears amount of Rs.78,263/- for drinking water and sewage connection. Likewise the 2^nd opposite party also issued Ex.A6 notice dated 13.11.2014 to the Complainant demanding to pay an amount of Rs.83,071/- and the 1^st opposite party again issued Ex.A8 notice demanding the Complainant to pay a sum of Rs.79,920/- and for all the said notice the Complainant issued Ex.A3, Ex.A7 and Ex.A9 replies to the opposite parties and he had also paid water and sewer charges for the period from March 2000 to March 2005 under Ex.A10.   

          9. The case of the Complainant is that he is not having separate water and sewer connection to his shop and therefore he is not liable to pay any amount as demanded by the opposite parties. The Complainant is a portion of owner and running a petty shop. It is not in dispute that the Complainant living building has 12 assessments including the Complainant. Further, the opposite parties used to give one water and sewer connection to a building, even though that building has several assessments. Therefore the assessors are all liable to pay water and sewage tax as demanded by the opposite parties. Therefore, nothing wrong in the demand notice Ex.A2, Ex.A6 and Ex.A8 raised by the opposite parties against the Complainant.

          10. The opposite parties relied on an order of the SCDRC, Uttar Pradesh reported in 1999(3) CPJ 355 (NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD, BULANASHAHA Vs MASS MOHAN LAL SAKENA) held that “payment of property tax or water tax cannot constitute payment of consideration for hiring or availing service of Municipal Board”. In the case in hand also the Complainant has paid water and sewage tax under Ex.A10 for the period March 2000 to March 2005. Such payments made by the Complainant cannot constitute the Complainant as a consumer. Therefore the opposite parties sent Ex.A1, Ex.A6, Ex.A8 demand notices to the Complainant justifiable and hence, it is held that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

 

 

 

 

11. POINT NO: 2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this  27^th  day of July 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 14.03.2001                   Sale Deed for the premises

Ex.A2 dated 21.07.2014                   Notice by 1^st Opposite Party

Ex.A3 dated 02.08.2014                   Reply by the Complainant

Ex.A4 dated 04.08.2014                   Acknowledgement Card

Ex.A5 dated 03.09.2014                   Latest property for the premises

Ex.A6 dated 13.11.2014                   Notice by 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A7 dated 18.12.2014                   Reply by the Complainant

Ex.A8 dated 29.12.2014                   Notice by the 1^st Opposite Party

Ex.A9 dated 12.01.2015                   Reply by the Complainant

Ex.A10 dated 20.03.2005                 Water and Sewage tax paid

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                      …….. NIL ……

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT