Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/88/2016

B.Govardhana Gupta, S/o. Late. B. Radha Krishnaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Municipal Corporation, Rep. By Its Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

Y.K.Malleswari Devi

15 Feb 2017

ORDER

        

 

                                                                                                                                                               Filing Date:-21-09-2016                                                                                                                                                                                     Order Date:  15-02-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

PRESENT:- Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                                                               Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

                                WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

C.C.No.88/2016

Between

B.Govardhana Gupta,

S/o Late B. Radhakrishnaih Chetty,

18-1-503(A),

B.J.R.Building,

Opp. Income Tax Office,

K.T.Road,

Tirupati.vvvvvv                                                                    … Complainant

 

And

The Municipal Corporation Rep. by it’s

Commissioner,

Tirupati.                                                                                       … Opposite party

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 30.01.2017 and upon perusing the complaint, written arguments of the complainant and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Smt.Y.K.Malleswari Devi, counsel for the complainant and  opposite party is remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite party  and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite party not to collect water tax from the complainant since January 2009 to till date and to issue no due certificate in that regard and to disconnect the water connection temporarily in municipal records as the complainant at present no need of water connection and also to pay Rs.25,000/- towards the damages caused for mental agony and deficiency in service and to pay costs of the litigation.

         2. The brief facts of the case are:  The complainant is having Telugu Ganga Water connection to his building assessment no. 1012002719. The complainant further submits that twenty years ago the above said tap connection was temporarily disconnected on the request of his father, again it was reconnected in May 2003 on the request of the complainant’s father. The complainant’s family using the water and paid water tax till 2006. After the death of his father the property was mutated in the name of the complainant and the complainant paid the water tax till December 2008. The complainant further submits that in the second week of the December 2008, due to the road extension works in K.T.Road the  Municipal Corporation was disconnected the water connection of the complainant’s building and there was no water supply to the complainant’s house from December 2008. The complainant further submits that he approached the concerned municipal clerk for temporary disconnection of the water pipe line connection in the records of municipality, because even after completion of the road works water pipe line was not reconnected to the complainant’s building, but the concerned clerk informed the complainant that there was no temporary disconnection facility and further stated that if there is no water supply to the complainant’s house, he need not pay water tax as per agreement of water tap connection. Hence he kept silent up to 19.10.2014.  But the municipal authorities levied water tax of Rs.6,000/- up to 20.10.2014 since January 2009 even though there is no water supply to his building. Hence he made a requisition to the opposite party to enquire the matter, and to disconnect the temporary water connection temporarily in municipal records, but no steps were taken by the opposite party even after receipt of the said requisition letter. Again the complainant sent another requisition letter on 13.12.2014 but they failed to issue reply, and meanwhile the opposite party issued another demand notice of water tax dt:03.11.2015 for Rs.8,400/- . Hence the complainant issued legal notice on 27.04.2016 same was received by the opposite party, but they have not taken any steps to reply the same, which is nothing but deficiency in service. Hence he filed the present complaint.

         3. The opposite party even after receipt of the notices failed to attend this Forum and remained absent and set exparte.

         4.  The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex:A1 to A4 were marked on behalf of him.  There is no documents were marked on behalf of the opposite party. The complainant filed written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

       5.  Now the points for consideration are:             

             (i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite party

                  towards the complainant?

             (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

             (iii) To what Relief?

         6. Point No:-(i).  The main contention of the complainant is, his father one Radhakrishnaiah Chetty is using municipal water connection which was provided to his house but the said water connection was disconnected temporarily and same was restored in the year 2003 by the request of his father and he paid Rs.100/- towards reconnection charges to the municipality i.e. Ex: A1 and he used the said water till his death i.e.2006. After death of the complainant’s father, the property was mutated in the name of the complainant and he used the water till 2008 and he paid the water tax for the year 01.10.2007 to 31.03.2009 of Rs.1800/- under Ex: A2.

             The complainant further stated that in the month of December 2008 the municipal authorities disconnected the pipe line of water supply to the complainant’s house due to road extension works, hence there is no water supply to his house since December 2008 and the opposite party failed to restore the water supply to his building even after completion of the road works. Hence the complainant approached the concerned clerk of Municipal Corporation for temporary disconnection of the water pipe line in the records of the municipality. But the said clerk informed the complainant that there is no option of disconnection facility temporarily in municipal records and further stated that when there is no water supply there is no need to pay water tax as per agreement of the water tap connection, hence he kept silent till 19.10.2014.

      The complainant further stated that the opposite party levied water tax and issued demand notice on till 20.10.2014 since January 2009, even after the disconnection of the water supply to his building. Hence he made a requisition to the opposite party to enquire the matter but, even after several representations made by the complainant as the opposite party failed to take any steps to enquire the matter, but they levied water tax of Rs.8,400/- till 2015 which is nothing but deficiency of service on part of the opposite party without providing water supply to his building they have levied water tax  and issued another demand notice of Rs.8,400/- till 03.11.2015 which is nothing but deficiency in service.

        The main contention of the complainant that he approached the opposite party prior to  2014 several times to the municipal authorities and requested the concern clerk for the disconnection of the water connection temporarily in the municipal records. Except the oral statements that he approached opposite party several times to disconnect the water connection in municipal records, he has not filed any documentary proof to prove his contention which draws adverse inference against the complainant and he has not approached the Forum with clean hands. Hence without any documentary proof we cannot consider the contention of the complainant. Hence the complainant is miserably failed to prove his case, in those circumstances we cannot hold deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. Hence this point is answered against the complainant.

       7. Point(ii):-    As the point no.1 is answered against the complainant the question of entitlement would not arise.

         8.Point (iii):-   In view of our findings on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove that there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party, and the complainant is  not entitled for the reliefs , as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result, complaint is dismissed. No Costs.

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 15^th day of February, 2017.

           Sd/-                                                                                                               Sd/-                                                                                                                          

  Lady Member                                                                                                    President   

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: B. Govardhana Gupta (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

-NIL-

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Tap water reconnection receipt in original.  Dt: 13th May, 2003.
	Water tax paid receipt in original. Receipt No.204. Dt: 29.11.2008.
	Water tax demand notice in original. Dt:  03.11.2015.
	Office copy of legal notice with postal receipt Dt: 27.04.2016 and acknowledgement. Dt: 28.04.2016.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

                                         Sd/-

                                                                                                              President

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

                                                                                                // BY ORDER //

 

                                                      Head Clerk/Sheristadar, 

                                             Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant

                  2) The Opposite party.