State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ex. Engineer H.P. Housing & Urban Dev. ... vs Sh. Sat Pal Soni. on 6 August, 2018
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 185/2017
Date of Presentation: 22.06.2017
Order Reserved on : 14.05.2018
Date of Order : 06.08.2018
......
The Executive Engineer H.P. Housing & Urban Development
Authority (HIMUDA) Division No.1 Kasumpti Shimla-9 H.P.
...... Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Shri Sat Pal Soni 32/G Ag Colony Sanjauli Shimla-6 Himachal
Pradesh 171006.
......Respondent /Complainant
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar vice Mr. Swaran
Sharma Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. K.S. Pathania 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 09.05.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.233/2012 RBT No.05/2017 titled Sat Pal Soni 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes. Ex. Engineer H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority Versus Sat Pal Soni (F.A. No.185/2017) Versus The Executive Engineer H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Shri Sat Pal filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that 24 employees have been allotted quarters by office of Accountant General in April 2006. It is pleaded that opposite party issued water bills on commercial rates since April 2006.
It is pleaded that opposite party is under legal obligation to issue bills on domestic rate. It is further pleaded that opposite party charges excessive water charges from the Central employees who are residing in Govt. accommodation allotted by central government. It is pleaded that opposite party did not refund security amount of Rs.500/-(Five hundred) when official leaves the accommodation. It is further pleaded that opposite party committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief as mentioned in relief clause of complaint.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complaint has no locus standi to file the present consumer complaint against opposite party. It is pleaded that complainant is not consumer vis-à-vis opposite party and complainant has no cause of action to file the present consumer complaint. It is further pleaded that 2 Ex. Engineer H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority Versus Sat Pal Soni (F.A. No.185/2017) intricate question of law and facts are involved in the present consumer complaint. It is pleaded that water bills are raised strictly as per rates fixed by M.C. Shimla for domestic water connection. It is further pleaded that water is purchased from M.C. Shimla and is further distributed to the allottees. It is pleaded that for refund of security the allottee is required to file application in accordance with law. It is pleaded that after the receipt of request application security deposited amount is refunded to the allottee in accordance with law. It is further pleaded that complainant is estopped from filing the present consumer complaint due to his own act and conduct. It is pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and set aside the bills issued w.e.f. 29.12.2010 to 16.07.2012 and directed opposite party to issue revised bills to the complainant strictly as per notification annexure-A. Learned District Forum in addition ordered opposite party to refund the excess amount received from complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand) as mental harassment. Feeling aggrieved against order passed 3 Ex. Engineer H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority Versus Sat Pal Soni (F.A. No.185/2017) by Learned District Forum opposite party 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?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
7. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that government accommodation allotted in favour of deponent i.e. 32/5 AG Colony Sanjauli Shimla.
There is recital in affidavit that deponent is using the water for domestic purpose but bills are issued by opposite party for commercial purpose.
8. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party has given statement before learned District Forum on 27.12.2014 that version alongwith document annexure-OP1 already filed be read in evidence on behalf of opposite party.
9. State Commission is of the opinion that version of opposite party could not be treated as evidence of opposite party qua proof of controversial facts under section 13(4) of 4 Ex. Engineer H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority Versus Sat Pal Soni (F.A. No.185/2017) Consumer Protection Act 1986 because pleadings of parties and evidence of opposite party qua controversial facts are entirely two different concepts under law. It is well settled law that pleading is not substitute for proof of controversial facts. See Latest HLJ 2017 H.P 1011 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Champa Devi & others. It is well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi judicial proceedings.
10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that order of learned District Forum is contrary to proved facts and is contrary to law is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused water bills placed on record. As per bills placed on record Housing & Urban Development Authority has claimed water bills as follows :-
S. No. Bill date Water units/Litre Bill claimed consumed.
1. 28.07.2011 30 Rs.1085/-
2. 02.04.2012 40 Rs.1290/-
11. As per annexure-B placed on record water rates were notified by State Government vide notification No.LSG- (9)29/83 dated 06.10.2003 and 16.10.2003 and as per notification for domestic water connection following charges would be claimed:-
5
Ex. Engineer H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority Versus Sat Pal Soni (F.A. No.185/2017) A. For Domestic Water Connections:
1. Within M.C. Limit (1) Upto 30000 Ltrs. Rs.7.50 per thousand Ltrs.
(2) Above 30000 Ltrs. Upto 75000 Ltrs. Rs.10.73 per thousand Ltrs. (3) Above 75000 Ltrs. Rs.16.12 per thousand Ltrs.
2. Outside M.C. Limit:-
(1) Upto 30000 Ltrs. Rs.26.81 Per thousand Ltrs. (2) above 30000 Ltrs. Upto 75000 Ltrs Rs.32.19 Per thousand Ltrs. (3) above 75000 Ltrs. Rs.42.90 Per thousand Ltrs.
3. Minimum charges to be paid by the consumers if consumption is less than 8000 ltrs. per month. (1) Within M.C. limit Rs.64/- per month. (2) Outside M.C. limit Rs.215/- per month.
B. For Commercial Water Connections:
4. Within and Outside M.C. limit:
(1) Upto 30000 Ltrs. Rs.32.19 per thousand Ltrs.
(2) Above 30000 Ltrs. Upto 75000 Ltrs. Rs.42.90 per thousand Ltrs. (3) Above 75000 Ltrs. Rs.59.00 per thousand Ltrs.
C. For Construction Purpose:
At the rate of Rs.59.00 Per thousand Ltrs. D. Minimum Charges to be paid by the consumer of the consumption is less than 8 Kilo Ltrs. (8000 Ltrs.) per month. (1) For commercial Use Rs.257/- per month. (2) For Construction purpose. Rs.471/- per month. E. For Government Institutions Government Hospitals Dharamshalas and Religious Places.
At the rate of Rs.32.19 per Kilo Ltrs. (P.1000 Ltrs.) The above rates will be increased @ 10% every year.
Sd/-
Assistant Engineer H.P. Housing & Urban Dev. Authority Sub. Division II Sanjauli Shimla-6.
6 Ex. Engineer H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority Versus Sat Pal Soni (F.A. No.185/2017)
12. State Commission has also carefully perused water bills submitted by HIMUDA dated 28.07.2011 and 02.04.2012. As per bill dated 28.07.2011 complainant has consumed 30 unites/Litre of water w.e.f. 01.12.2010 to 30.06.2011 but opposite party has demanded payment of Rs.1085/-(One thousand eighty five). As per bill dated 02.04.2012 complainant has consumed 40 unites/litre of water w.e.f. 01.07.2011 to 31.12.2011 but opposite party has demanded payment of Rs.1290/-(One thousand two hundred ninety). State Commission is of the opinion that opposite party was under legal obligation to claim charges as per notification No.LSG-(9)29/83 dated 06.10.2003 and 16.10.2003 issue by State Government. It is proved on record that opposite party has not claimed water bills strictly as per notification No.LSG-(9)29/83 dated 06.10.2003 and 16.10.2003 and committed deficiency in service.
13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts 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 passed by learned District Forum because opposite party had claimed excessive water charges contrary to notification 7 Ex. Engineer H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority Versus Sat Pal Soni (F.A. No.185/2017) issued by H.P. State Government cited supra. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
14. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order passed by learned District Forum is affirmed. Water bill dated 28.07.2011 and water bill dated 02.04.2012 issued by opposite party 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 06.08.2018 KD* 8