State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Vijay Kumar Sood. vs Muncipal Corporation Shimla. on 10 June, 2019
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 294/2017
Date of Presentation: 24.11.2017
Order Reserved on : 08.01.2019
Date of Order : 10.06.2019
......
Vijay Kumar Sood son of late Shri Hanwant Dass Sood R/o
Highway Top Apartment Khalini Shimla-2.
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Municipal Corporation Shimla through its Commissioner The
Mall Shimla-1 H.P.
......Respondent/Opposite party
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. B.S. Ranjan Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Dinesh Kainthla vice Mr.
Harish Sharma Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 16.10.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.274/2015 titled Vijay Kumar Sood Versus Municipal Corporation Shimla.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Vijay Kumar Sood Versus Municipal Corporation Shimla F.A. No.294/2017 Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Shri Vijay Kumar filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant purchased premises situated at Highway Top Apartment Khalini Shimla H.P by way of sale deed from Shri Rakesh Verma son of Shri Ratti Ram Verma in the month of January 2017. It is pleaded that opposite party has installed water connection in the name of Shri Charan Dass and Janki Dass Anant Niwas Khalini. It is pleaded that complainant is consumer of opposite party. It is further pleaded that complainant received excessive water bill to the tune of Rs.22000/-(Twenty two thousand). It is pleaded that thereafter opposite party issued another bill to the tune of Rs.4967/-(Four thousand nine hundred sixty seven). It is pleaded that complainant represented the matter to opposite party but opposite party issued another bill to the tune of Rs.42223/-(Forty two thousand two hundred twenty three). It is pleaded that complainant is residing and using water for domestic purpose only. It is further pleaded that during 2014 complainant requested the opposite party to convert the commercial water connection No.9308 into domestic water connection. It is pleaded that complainant visited office of opposite party several times and requested opposite party to issue revised bill but opposite party did not issue revised bill and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought 2 Vijay Kumar Sood Versus Municipal Corporation Shimla F.A. No.294/2017 relief to the effect that water bill annexure-C5 amounting to Rs.42223/-(Forty two thousand two hundred twenty three) be quashed. In addition complainant sought alternative relief that opposite party be directed to withdraw the bill in question annexure-C5 and opposite party be directed to issue fresh bill to complainant. Complainant also sought relief to the effect that opposite party be directed to convert water connection from commercial to domestic. In addition complainant also sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand). In addition complainant sought relief to the effect that opposite party be directed to refund excessive amount to the tune of Rs.3000/-(Three thousand).
Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complainant has no locus standi to file consumer complaint. It is pleaded that complainant has no cause of action and complainant is estopped from filing present consumer complaint due to his act, conduct and acquiescence. It is pleaded that opposite party has provided water connection against A/C No.9308 in the name of Sh. Charan Dass and Janki Dass. It is pleaded that complainant is not consumer of opposite party. It is pleaded that water rates for commercial connection and domestic connection are different. It is pleaded that water bill of commercial connection are issued on actual consumption. It is further 3 Vijay Kumar Sood Versus Municipal Corporation Shimla F.A. No.294/2017 pleaded that water bill for domestic connection is issued on flat rate basis. It is pleaded that disputed water bill was issued on the basis of rate fixed by M.C. house vide resolution No.3(ii) dated 29.09.2012 for those connections wherein water meter is not functional @ Rs.4592/-(Four thousand five hundred ninety two) per month. It is further pleaded that water connection in question is commercial water connection and is not a domestic water connection. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Learned District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission.
5. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to adjudicate account dispute inter se parties under Consumer Protection Act 1986?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
4
Vijay Kumar Sood Versus Municipal Corporation Shimla F.A. No.294/2017
7. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is resident of Shimla-H.P owning his house situated at Highway Top Apartment Khalini Shimla-2. There is recital in affidavit that deponent purchased the house by way of registered sale deed executed by Shri Rakesh Verma son of Shri Ratti Ram Verma in January 2017. There is recital in affidavit that house purchased by deponent is having water connection supplied by opposite party in the name of Shri Charan Dass and Janki Dass. There is recital in affidavit that deponent received excessive water bill. There is recital in affidavit that deponent filed application before opposite party for conversion of water meter in question from commercial to domestic but opposite party did not accept request of complainant till date. State Commission has carefully perused all the annexures filed by complainant.
8. Opposite party filed affidavit of Shri Vijay Gupta working as Municipal Engineer water supply and sewerage in the office of opposite party. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has no locus standi to file consumer complaint and no service is provided by opposite party to complainant.
There is recital in affidavit that complainant is estopped from filing the present consumer complaint due to his own act, conduct, deed and acquiescence. There is recital in affidavit that bill in question was issued by opposite party as per 5 Vijay Kumar Sood Versus Municipal Corporation Shimla F.A. No.294/2017 resolution issued by Municipal Corporation. There is further recital in affidavit that as per resolution an amount of Rs.4592/-(Four thousand five hundred ninety two) per month would be charged for water connection wherein water meter was not in functional condition. There is recital in affidavit that water meter in question was commercial in nature and not domestic in nature. There is recital in affidavit that complainant did not apply for conversion of commercial water meter into domestic water meter. State Commission has also carefully perused annexures filed by opposite party.
9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that water bill submitted by opposite party to the tune of Rs.42223/-(Forty two thousand two hundred twenty three) be quashed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that opposite party did not issue any water bill to complainant in the name of complainant. On the contrary opposite party has issued water bill in question in the name of Sh. Charan Dass and Janki Dass. Although complainant has pleaded that he has purchased the house by way of sale deed from Sh. Rakesh Verma son of Shri Ratti Ram Verma on dated 17.01.2007. It is proved on record that bill in question is not issued in the name of Sh. Rakesh Verma but bill in question is issued in the name of Sh. Charan Dass and Janki Dass and it is also proved on record that bill in question is not issued in the name of complainant 6 Vijay Kumar Sood Versus Municipal Corporation Shimla F.A. No.294/2017 in personal capacity. In the present consumer complaint Sh. Rakesh Verma and Shri Charan Dass and Sh. Janki Dass are not co-party. Even dispute inter se parties is relating to settlement of accounts. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to settle dispute relating to settlement of accounts in summary manner as it require elaborate detailed inquiry. See CPC 1994(1) 635 SCDRC Punjab titled Manohar Lal Versus The Punjab State (Home Department. See 1998(III) CPJ 9 NC (Four members bench) titled Vishal Roadways Versus Economic Traders (Gujarat) Ltd.
10. Complainant did not place on record any document on record in order to prove that complainant has filed application before Municipal Corporation for transferring the water meter in question in the name of complainant. State Commission is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to relegate complainant to civil court for adjudication of his dispute as bill in question has not been issued in the name of complainant by opposite party.
11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that in alternative opposite party be directed to withdraw bill annexure-C5 and issue fresh bill is decided accordingly. In view of the fact that opposite party 7 Vijay Kumar Sood Versus Municipal Corporation Shimla F.A. No.294/2017 did not issue bill in the name of complainant State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to dispose of present matter in a summary manner.
12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that opposite party be directed to convert the connection from commercial to domestic is decided accordingly. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that complainant has filed written application before opposite party for conversion of commercial meter into domestic meter. In view of above stated facts it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to grant any relief to complainant in a summary manner against opposite party.
13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that opposite party be directed to refund excessive amount of Rs.3000/-(Three thousand) is decided accordingly. Dispute inter se parties is relating to settlement of accounts and State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to adjudicate the matter relating to settlement of accounts in view of rulings cited supra.
14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that opposite party be directed to pay 8 Vijay Kumar Sood Versus Municipal Corporation Shimla F.A. No.294/2017 litigation costs to the tune of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand) is decided accordingly. Bill in question has been issued in the name of Sh. Charan Dass and Sh. Janki Dass and complainant did not purchase house from Shri Charan Dass and Sh. Janki Dass by way of sale deed. Complainant has purchased house wherein water connection has been installed from Shri Rakesh Verma vide sale deed dated 17.01.2007. Bill in question has not been issued in the name of Sh. Rakesh Verma predecessor in interest of complainant by opposite party. In view of above stated facts it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to dispose of consumer complaint in a summary manner under Consumer Protection Act 1986 as present matter involve complicated questions of laws and facts.
15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that order of learned District Forum does not warrant interference by State Commission is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to interfere in the order of learned District Forum keeping in view the fact that bill in question has not been issued in the name of complainant and bill in question has also not been issued in the name of Sh. Rakesh Verma from whom complainant is stated to have purchased the 9 Vijay Kumar Sood Versus Municipal Corporation Shimla F.A. No.294/2017 house wherein disputed water connection is installed. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
16. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal filed by complainant is dismissed and complainant is relegated to civil court for adjudication of his dispute. Sale deed annexure-C1 dated 17.01.2007 and disputed bill annexure-C5 shall form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member Sunita Sharma Member 10.06.2019 KD* 10