STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

OF TELANGANA : AT HYDERABAD

   FA NO. 1254 OF 2013 AGAINST CC NO.77 OF 2013

ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, RANGAREDDY

Between :

Lakshmi Vihar-II Residents Welfare Association

(Regd. No.778/2008)

Lakshmi Vihar Phase –II, Nallagandla,

Serilingampally, Hyderabad – 500019.                

Rep. by:-

U.Prabhakar Reddy S/o. U.Damodar Reddy,

President: Lakshmi Vihar –II Residents Welfare Association,

R/o. Plot No.75, Lakshmi Vihar Phase –II,

Nallagandla, Serilingampally,

Hyderabad – 500019.                                        …..Appellants / Complainant(s)

And

The Managing Director,

Hyderabad Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board,

Khairtabad, Hyderabad, Telangana                  ….Respondent /Opposite party

Counsel for the Appellants / Complainant(s)   :      T.POORNIMA

Counsel for the Respondent /Opposite party   :      M/s.P.S.MANJULA KUMAR

Coram                   :

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, President

&

Sri Patil Vithal Rao, Member

Thursday, the Twenty Fourth day of November

Two thousand Sixteen

Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Patil Vithal Rao, Member)

***

          The Appellant Association herein is the complainant and the Respondent Board  is the opposite party in C.C.no.77/2013 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy District[in short, the ‘District Forum’] by the order dated 31.10.2013 the District Forum    dismissed the complaint which gave rise to filing of the present appeal by the complainant’s Association.     

2.            The case of the appellant, in brief, is that it was buying water from the Respondent Board for all its residents consisting of about 100 houses in the colony and has been maintaining a separate Sewerage Treatment Plant since beginning.  The sewerage water, after due treatment, is reused for gardening purposes in and around the colony and the solid waste is being converted to manure for the plants.  Though no sewerage is let out from the colony into any public drains, the Respondent Board claimed sewerage charges illegally.  In this regard several representations were submitted including a recommendation letter from the local MLA but the Respondent Board ignored the same and issued notice to disconnect the water supply claiming arrears towards water and sewerage charges.  As per the Appellant Association, when the Respondent Board does not provide any sewerage service, it cannot claim the charges for it.  For these reasons the Appellant Association had filed the case before the District Forum to direct the Respondent Board to delete the sewerage cess from the demand bill and not to disconnect the water supply.  The Appellant Association had also claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-  on the premise of unfair trade practice and restrictive trade practice amounting to deficiency in service with costs.    
3.             The defense set up by the respondent board, before the District Forum, interalia, is that as per section-8 of the Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1989 [for short, ‘The Act’], it can levy rates, fees, tariffs, rentals, deposits, contributions and other charges from the consumers inorder to provide sufficient revenues as contemplated under the said Act.  The Appellant Association obtained water supply connection of 50 mm dia with 110 KL daily water supply under the bulk category.  Therefore, as per revised tariff the Board raised demand towards water supply and sewerage charges under Section-55 of the Act, R/w Rules 4 & 14 of the sewerage rules.  The sewerage cess will be @ 35% on water supply demand which is in accordance with the law and the Appellant Association is liable for the same even if the premises is situated in an area which is not served by sewerage system of the Board.  As a matter of fact the Appellant’s colony sewer are being let into nalas and thereafter leading to sewerage system of the Respondent Board for treatment with a level of river standard.  But the Appellant Association misconstrued Section-55 of the Act, 1989 which neither expressly nor impleadly stipulates that the occupier of the premises situated in an area not served by sewerage system is exempted from the sewerage cess even though the sewerage from such premises is let into the Board severe by any means what so ever.  For all these reasons, the Respondent Board had prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.                  
4.  During the course of enquiry the Appellant Association had filed evidence affidavit of it’s President and marked Ex.A1 to A10 in support of the claim.  Per contra, the Respondent Board relied on the evidence of its General Manager concerned and Ex.B1 to B3.  By considering the material evidence placed on record and the arguments, both oral and written, of the contending parties, the District Forum passed the impugned order on 31.10.2013.

5.      The Appellant Association has contended in the present appeal, inter alia, that there is no sewerage line of the Respondent Board connecting it’s premises to any sewerage system and that the Association is using it’s own Sewerage Treatment Plant [STP] and thereby maintaining it’s own park. But the District Forum has ignored this aspect.  Infact the Appellant Association has neither let in its sewer directly nor indirectly in the sewerage main of the Board as there is no such drainage system in whole of Serilingampally Mandal.  Though funds were sanctioned under JNURN Scheme to construct such STPs by lying about 100KM of drainage lines so far the project was not completed even to the extent of 50% and that infact the matter has been stayed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.no.12127/2009.  The District Forum did not consider and appreciate all these facts but came to a wrong conclusion and passed the impugned order.  Therefore, the Appellant Association has prayed to set aside the same by allowing the appeal.  
6. Perused the written arguments and heard the learned counsel for the parties to the appeal.
7. Now the point for consideration is that :

Whether the appeal is erroneous and illegal either on facts or in the eye of law and that as such liable to be set aside?

8. Point :-   The only grievance of the Appellant Association is that the Respondent Board is bent upon to collect sewerage cess without providing sewerage pipe line, by threatening to                    disconnect the water supply of the colony, though no water cess is due.  Ex.A2 is the disconnection notice dated 11.06.2012 issued by the Respondent Board in this regard.  To substantiate this contention, the Appellant has relied upon the notification dated 16.07.2010 issued by the Respondent Board in pursuance of it’s Proceeding no.132, Administrative Wing, 12^th July, 2010 vide Ex.A6.  Clause -4 of the said Notification is relevant to decide the issue and as such the same is extracted as under:

“As the effluents from the nalas / water bodies are being treated to river standards by HMWSSB incurring huge expenditure.  It has been decided by the Board to levy sewerage cess according to the plot area for Domestic consumers and plinth area for Non-domestic consumers for the consumers who are having only sewerage connection but without water supply connection.”

9.   But the said clause has to be read with reference to Section-8 & 55 of the Hyderabad Metro Water Sewerage & Sewerage Board Act, 1989 and the Hyderabad Metro Sewerage Rules, 1990. Under Section -8 the  Respondent Board  is empowered to levy various charges including rentals, deposits, contributions and fees etc., inorder to raise sufficient revenues :-

1.  To cover operating expenses, taxes and interest payments and to provide for adequate maintenance and depreciation;
2. To meet repayments of loans and other borrowings;
3. To finance normal year to year improvements;
4. To provide for further capital works as are necessary from time to time;
5. To provide for the cost of such other purposes beneficial to the promotion of water supply and construction of sewerage and sewage treatment works in the Hyderabad Metropolitan area as the Board may determine.

10.            Further, as per Section -55 of the Act, 1989 the Respondent Board is entitled to collect sewage cess @ 35% of water consumption charges.  Thus, the sewage cess is an integral part of the water cess.  In the present case, the Appellant Association has obtained water and sewerage connection as evident from the Query And Response Report, Ex.B2.  This document shows that the connection was released on 03.08.2007 and the tariff category is of INDUSTRIES – BULK with water size : 50 and sewerage size : 15.  ExB3 is the customer ledger showing the connection status as “normal”. The Respondent Board has been collecting the sewage cess to meet its expenses towards promotion of water supply, construction of sewerage and sewage treatment works which is certainly a beneficial purpose for the society.  The Respondent Board has specifically pleaded that the Appellant Association has been letting its sewage into the nalas which leads to sewerage system of the Board for treatment.  No doubt, the Appellant Association has alleged that the Respondent Board did not adduce any evidence in this regard but the fact remains that the tariff category is of “Industries Bulk” as per Ex.B2.  In this circumstance the onus of proof shifts on the Appellant Association to establish that though sewage connection was taken by them, no such facility was ever provided by the Respondent Board.  But no any steps were taken by the Appellant Association to discharge said onus.   It is a fact that all the Industrial effluents from the area which is at a higher level passes through the nearby area of Serilingampally (M). The word ‘sewer’ also includes rain water, waste water or subsoil water as per Section (2) (o) of the Act, 1989.  Even, assuming that the Appellant Association is not provided with any sewerage line of the Respondent Board but the category of sewage connection noted above, is INDUSTRIES – BULK and the excess sewage atleast in rainy seasons,   must be flowing towards Nala and ultimately leading to the sewerage system of the Board.  In view of all these facts the Appellant Association can not avail any benefit from the Notification, Ex.A6.                      
11. It is not the case of the Appellant Association that the Respondent Board has been charging excessively the water cess.  It’s only contention is that the Board has been charging sewage cess illegally.  The legality and validity of the Respondent Board in charging the same cannot be questioned under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 but, the Appellant Association has to challenge it before the Appropriate Forum / Authority.  Because, as per the Appellant Association, the Respondent Board did not provide any sewerage line, that means, the Appellant Association is not a consumer of the Respondent Board in using the sewerage facility.  In other words, as per the Appellant Association, the Respondent Board is not providing any services to it towards sewerage.  Thus, admittedly there is no relationship of Consumer and Service Provider between the parties, even as per the claim of the Appellant Association.  When this being the case, we hold that the jurisdiction a Consumer Fora is ousted under the Act, 1986.         

12. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to providing of water supply.  Had there been such a dispute, certainly the provisions of the Act, 1986 could have been made applicable because the Appellant Association has been paying water cess, as a Consumer and the Board has been providing it as a service provider.

13. We have carefully perused the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum.  In our opinion it has considered all the aspects involved in the issue and based it’s findings with convincing reasoning.  Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Forum is neither perverse nor erroneous and that as such the same needs no interference.  In this view of the matter, we hold that the appeal is devoid of any merits and that as such liable to be dismissed.
14. The point is thus answered against the Appellant Association.
15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but in the peculiar circumstances without costs.        

PRESIDENT                         MEMBER

 24.11.2016