State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K S Lalitha vs Bwssb on 2 March, 2024
1 A/735/2023
Date of Filing : 19.04.2023
Date of Disposal : 02.03.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 02nd DAY OF MARCH 2024
PRESENT
Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs. M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO.735/2023
K.S.Lalitha,
Aged 70 years,
R/at 437, 7th main,
2nd block, HRBR,
Kalyan Nagar,
Bengaluru-43. ..Appellant/s
(By Inperson)
Vs
BWSSB
Rep. by Assistant Executive Engineer,
9th 'D' main, service road,
1st block, HRBR layout,
Kalyan Nagar, Bengaluru-43. ..Respondent/s
(By Adv.Sri.Prashanth.T.Pandit)
ORDER
BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This is an appeal filed U/s.41 of CPA 2019 by Complainant/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.07.03.2023 2 A/735/2023 passed in CC/497/2021 by 1st Addl., District Commission, Bengaluru urban. Parties to this appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned by the District Commission.
2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard the learned counsels.
3. The facts leads to prefer this appeal would be stated in brief, as the Complainant had raised consumer complaint, before the DCDRC, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP and sought to waive of the pending water bills on the ground that, for the past ten years, OP has not supplied water to her building. This complaint is contested by OP contending as per the required parameters, OP being the statutory board to provide drinking water and to maintain the sewage, rightly issued bills and rightly disconnected the water supply from January 2022, which cannot be said rendering deficiency in service on their part. The District Commission, held an enquiry by receiving affidavit evidence, documents, found no grounds to attribute rendering deficiency in service on the part of OP and as a result, dismissed the complaint with no order as to cost. It is this order is assailed in this appeal, contending, the District Commission failed to appreciate all the materials on record. The District Commission dismissed the complaint filed by a senior 3 A/735/2023 citizen is not only contrary to the facts, but also, Water Board Rules is liable to be set aside.
4. In view of rival contentions of the learned counsels before this Commission, now we have decide on the point would be, whether impugned order does call for any interference for the grounds set out in the appeal memo ?
5. At the very outset, Complainant in her complaint has sought to waive of pending water bills, as water never supplied or she had not used water for the past 10 years. Admittedly, she had built a house no.29 situated at 12th cross, Nagawara main road, Bengaluru. In her complaint itself, has stated, with fond hope of receiving rental income during her retirement age, had taken Cauvery water connections from the OP in the year 2012 and had paid Rs.15,000/-. However, there has been no water supply from OP due to improper planning of water flow. According to the Complainant, OP issued monthly water bill for Rs.100/- and in the year 2017, the water connection was disconnected, due to non-payment of dues and before filing of complaint had received bill amount of Rs.15,000/-.
6. On the contrary, learned counsels for OP/water board submits that, bill issued at Rs.100/- is not for supply of water, but was towards treating sewage charges which shall have to be payable 4 A/735/2023 by Complainant having own house no.29 situated at 12th cross, Nagawara main road, Bengaluru. Whether she has rented her building for tenants or not is nothing to do with water board has some considerable force. In other words, learned counsel for OP rightly submitted the bill includes water charges, sanitary charges and meter charges. We have to observe herein even the District Commission found OP has not issued any excess bill at any point of time, since the Complainant has not paid any water bill amount from the date of sanction. It is not in dispute that, after construction of her building with effect from 15.10.2014 water supply and sewage treatment was sanctioned and when the Complainant has failed to pay the bills regularly, quite natural it would be mounting up to Rs.16,655/- and when such bill amount was not paid pursuant to bill raised by OP has no option to disconnect the water supply which cannot be said rendering deficiency of services as alleged in the complaint. In such circumstances, OP was right, to disconnect the water supply in the month of January 2022, which cannot be said rendering deficiency in service on the part of OP. We have to bear in mind OP is a statutory body constituted under a statue by State Government meant not only to supply water but also to maintain sewage treatment.
5 A/735/2023
7. In the above such circumstances, even after disconnecting water supply, Complainant is bound to pay towards sewage charges, which cannot be denied on the ground that she is a senior citizen, which was rightly considered by the District Commission in the impugned order. In such conclusion, we do not find any grounds to interfere in the impugned order passed by the District Commission and as a result ordered to dismiss the appeal with no order as to cost.
8. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member *NS*