State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionNarinder Singla vs Municipal Corporation Chandigarh on 1 September, 2011BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U
  
 

 
 







 



 

STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

 

U.T.,
  CHANDIGARH 

 

  

 
   
   
   

First Appeal
  No 
  
   
   

: 
  
   
   

69 of 2011 
  
 
  
   
   

Date of Institution 
  
   
   

: 
  
   
   

08.04.2011 
  
 
  
   
   

Date of Decision  
  
   
   

: 
  
   
   

01.09.2011 
  
 


 

Narinder Singla, son of Shri Manoj
Kumar Plot No.402, Industrial Area,
Phase II,   Chandigarh. 

 

.Appellant/Complainant 

 

 V E R S U
S 

 

1.        
Municipal Corporation  Chandigarh, through its Superintendent/Sub Divisional
Engineer, M.C. Public Health, Water Works, Sub Division No.5, Sector 32,   Chandigarh. 

 

2.        
Ravi Palta, son of Shri Ramesh
Chand Palta, presently resident of Ashok Park Extension,   New Delhi 110026.  

 

  ..Respondents/Opposite Parties 

 

  

 

Appeal underSection 15of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

  

 

BEFORE: MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT. 

 

 MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.Argued
by: Sh.Vikas Sagar, Advocate for the appellant.Sh.Vinay Gupta,
Advocate for respondent No.1.Respondent No.2 (Service dispensed with, vide order
dated 26.05.2010).PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT1.        
This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.03.2011,
rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh
(hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it accepted
the complaint, and directed the OPs as under:-i.The complainant shall pay the said amount of Rs.1,51,800/- to OP-1
within 15 days. After receiving the payment from the complainant, the OP-1
shall resume the water connection in the said premises.ii.OP-2 shall pay to the complainant Rs.1,51,800/- alongwith interest @8%
p.a. since 13.02.2009 (the date when the first complainant regarding the theft
of water was reported to SDO, Chandigarh vide Annexure C-2) and Rs.5,000/- each
as litigation costs to the complainant as well as OP-1 within 15 days from the
date when the said payment is made by the complainant to OP-1.iii.The order shall be fully complied with by the complainant and OP-2 in
the aforesaid period failing which:-a.Complainant would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,51,800/-
to OP-1 alongwith penal interest @18% p.a. since the filing of the present
complainant i.e. 06.05.2010 till the payment is actually made.b.OP-2 would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,51,800/- to the
complainant alongwith penal interest @18% p.a. since 13.02.2009 (the date when
the first complainant regarding the theft of water was reported to SDO,
Chandigarh vide Annexure C-2) till the payment is actually made besides payment
of litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- each to complainant as well as OP-12.        
The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant, claimed
himself, as landlord and owner of Plot No.402, Industrial Area, Phase II,   Chandigarh. OP-2, was the
tenant of the complainant, in the front portion of the premises, in question.
OP-2, was illegally having water connection direct from the Public Health Line.
On coming to know of this factum, the complainant immediately informed OP-1 on
2.2.2009, regarding the theft of water by OP-2, from the Public Health Line. On
the complaint, made by the complainant, OP-1 immediately made an enquiry and
found that OP-2, was having illegal water connection, from the Public Health
Line and using the water for his business of filling of water
dispensers/campers. Accordingly, the illegal water connection, wherefrom the
OP-2, was taking water for his business, was disconnected. On 13.2.2009, the
complainant, received a water bill dated 11.2.2009, for Rs.1,38,000/-, on
account of penal rent for the illegal water connection, without going into the
question, that the said illegal water connection was taken by OP-2, and not by
the complainant, for his business. It was stated that despite filing complaint dated
18.2.2009, with the SSP, and also with OP-1, no action was taken against OP-2. It
was further stated that, on the other hand, the legal water supply connection of
the premises of the complainant, was disconnected. It was further stated that
the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service, and
indulgence into unfair trade practice. A legal notice was sent to OP-1 on
10.11.2009, but to no avail. When the grievance of the complainant, was not
redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint underSection 12of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was
filed.3.        
OP-1 in its written reply, admitted that OP-2 had
taken illegal water connection from the main Public Health Line. It was stated
that OP-1 was not concerned, whether the complainant or owner, or occupier made
payment towards the water charges. It
was further stated that OP-1, had the legal right to recover the outstanding
charges, as per the provisions of law. It
was further stated that the water connection, which the complainant, had taken
in the aforesaid premises, legally, was disconnected, as he did not make
payment, despite repeated requests by OP-1, and an amount of Rs.1,51,800/- was
still due and outstanding towards the previous arrears of water charges. It was
further stated that, under these circumstances, OP-1, was neither deficient, in
rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations,
were denied, being wrong.4.        
None appeared, on behalf of OP-2, despite due
service. Accordingly, OP-2, was proceeded against ex-parte.5.        
The parties led evidence, in support of their case.6.        
After hearing the Counsel for the parties, as well
as, on going through the evidence, and record, the District Forum, accepted the
complaint, in the manner, referred to above, in the opening para., of this
order.7.        
Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed, by
the appellant/complainant.8.        
Service of the OP-2, was dispensed with, vide order
dated 26.05.2010, as he was ex-parte in the District Forum.9.        
We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have
gone through the evidence and record of the case, very carefully.10.      
The Counsel for the appellant/complainant,
submitted that he was not taking the water illegally, from the Public Health
Line. He further submitted that the complainant, was having a legal water
connection, in his premises, and was taking water therefrom. He further
submitted that, it was OP-2/respondent no.2, his tenant, who was having illegal
water connection, from the Public Health Line, and was taking the water for the
purpose of running his business. He further submitted that the complainant,
made a complaint, against OP-2, when he came to know of his illegal acts. He
further submitted that it was, on the basis of the complaint, made by the
complainant, that the illegal connection, which OP-2 had taken from the Public
Health Line, for using the water for his business, was disconnected. He further
submitted that, under these circumstances, the demand raised by OP-1, against
the legal water connection of the complainant, in his premises and
disconnection of the said connection, on non-payment of that amount, was
illegal. He further submitted that for the fault of OP-2, the complainant could
not be blamed, nor the liability of OP-2, could be fastened by OP-1, on the
complainant, when he was not concerned with the illegal connection, taken by
the latter. He further submitted that the order, of the District Forum, directing
the complainant to pay Rs.1,51,800/- to OP-1,within 15 days, from the date of
receipt of the impugned order, and on payment of the same, resumption of water
connection, at his premises, was illegal. He further submitted the order of the
District Forum, against the complainant/appellant, being illegal, is liable to
be set aside.11.      
On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent
No.1/ OP No.1 submitted that, it was within its right to recover the amount of
water charges, alongwith penalty from the complainant, who was the landlord/owner
of the premises, though he had legal water connection, as per the provisions of
bye-laws. He further submitted that the District Forum, was right in directing
the complainant, to deposit Rs.1,51,800/-. He further submitted that the
District Forum, was also right in holding that after receiving that amount,
from the complainant, OP-1, shall resume the water connection, in the said premises.
He further submitted that the order of the District Forum being, legal and
valid, deserves to be upheld.12.      
After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the
rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in our considered
opinion, the appeal is liable to be accepted and the order of the District
Forum, deserves to be modified, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. At
the time of arguments, the Counsel for OP-1/respondent no.1, produced a copy of
the amended Bye-Laws, governing the subject matter, issued by the Chandigarh
Administration, Local Government Department. Clause vii of Bye-Laws defines consumer.
According to this Clause, consumer means any corporate body, person or persons,
supplied or applying to be supplied with or using water from the water supply Works
or any person or persons otherwise, liable for the payment of water charges.
From this Clause, it is evident that any person using water from the water supply
works of the Municipal Corporation, falls within the definition of consumer.
OP-2/respondent no.2, was a tenant, at the relevant time, in the premises,
being owned by the complainant. The complainant was admittedly having legal
water connection, in his premises. It was not the complainant, who was found
committing theft of water or tampering with the legal water connection,
installed in his premises. It was not the complainant, who was having illegal
water connection for taking water, from the main Public Health Line. On the
other hand, it was OP-2/respondent no.2, who was having illegal connection,
from the main line of Public Health for extracting water for using the same,
for his business, referred to above. It was the complainant, who made the
complaint against OP-2, when he came to know of his illegal acts. Since OP-2,
had taken illegal water connection from the main pipe line of the Public Health
and was getting water therefrom, for his
business, he fell within the definition of consumer and could be fastened with
the liability. The liability to pay the amount of Rs.1,51,800/-, calculated, as
per the Bye-Laws aforesaid, could only be fastened upon OP-2 and not upon the
complainant. The findings of the District Forum, that, since the complainant,
was the owner of the premises and OP-2 was a tenant, therein, he(complainant)
was equally responsible for the act and conduct of the OP-2, being illegal, are
reversed.13.      
The legally installed water connection of the
complainant, in the premises, in question, which was not being tampered with
nor being illegally used by him or by OP-2, could not be illegally
disconnected, for the fault of OP-2, who was having illegal connection, from
the main pipe line of Public Health. OP-1 was, however, entitled to recover the
amount of penalty, referred to above, from OP-2, and not from the complainant.
The disconnection of water connection, in the premises of the complainant, when he
was not at fault, was completely illegal. The findings of the District Forum, to
the effect, that the water connection of the complainant, in his premises, was
rightly disconnected, being perverse are reversed.14.      
OP-2, as stated above was, however, liable to pay
the amount of penalty, as it was he, who was at fault by taking illegal
connection, from the main pipeline of Public Health. The District Forum,
instead of fastening the liability solely on OP-2, unnecessarily and without
any legal basis, made the complainant, also responsible for no fault of his.15.      
For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, filed
by the complainant/appellant is accepted, with no order as to costs and the
impugned order is modified in the following manner:-(a) The order of the District Forum, directing the
complainant, to pay the amount of Rs.1,51,800/- to OP-1, within 15 days, and after
the receipt of the same, from
him(complainant), directing OP-1, to resume the water connection in the said
premises being illegal is set aside.(b) OP-1, is directed to reconnect the water connection, which
was legally installed in the premises of the complainant, within 10 days, on receipt
of a copy of the order, without charging Rs.1,51,800/-, or any other amount,
not legally due, against the said connection.(c) OP-2/respondent no.2,
shall pay to OP-1, Rs.1,51,800/-, alongwith interest @8% per annum, from
13.02.2009 (the date when the first complainant regarding the theft of water
was made to the SDO,   Chandigarh
vide Annexure C-2, by the complainant), alongwith litigation costs of
Rs.5,000/-, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.(d) Incase, OP-2, fails
to pay the amount aforesaid, within the stipulated period, alongwith interest,
he shall be liable to pay the same, alongwith penal interest @12% per annum,
from 13.02.2009 (the date when the first complainant regarding the theft of
water was made to the SDO, Chandigarh, vide Annexure C-2, by the complainant),
till realization, besides payment of litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-, awarded by
the District Forum, to OP-1/respondent no.1.(e) Any other direction
to and against the complainant, given by the District Forum, in the impugned
order, shall also stand set aside.16. Copies
of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.Pronounced.September 1st, 2011 

 

Sd/-[JUSTICE
SHAM SUNDER] 

 

PRESIDENT 

 

  

 

Sd/-[NEENA
SANDHU] 

 

MEMBER 

 

  

 

Rg