State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bwssb vs B.Leelavathi on 7 August, 2024
1 Appeal No.453/2020
Date of Filing : 03.07.2020
Date of Disposal : 07.08.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 07th DAY OF AUGUST 2024
PRESENT
Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs. M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO.453/2020
1. BWSSB
West of Chord Road,
II Stage, Bangalore-560086
Rep. by its Executive Engineer
2. BWSSB
Rajajinagar, I Block,
Bangalore-560010
Rep. by its Executive Engineer..Appellant/s
(By Adv.Sri.M.Byregowda)
Vs
B.Leelavathi
W/o K.Shivaram,
Aged about 58 Years,
R/at No.59, Dollars Scheme,
15th Main, 6th Cross,
Nandini Layout,
Bangalore-560096...Respondent/s
(By SPA Holder)
2 Appeal No.453/2020
ORDER
BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of CPA 1986 by OPs.1 & 2/Appellants aggrieved by the order dtd.24.02.2020 passed in CC/1575/2018 on the file of Bengaluru Urban District Commission (Parties to the appeal henceforth are referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission).
2. The Commission examined the grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard.
3. Now, the point that arise for consideration of this Commission would be whether the impugned order dtd.24.02.2020 passed in CC/1575/2018 does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo ?
4. One Smt.B.Leelavathi, the Complainant in CC/1575/2018 had raised consumer complaint to give directions against OPs.1 & 2 not to claim the levy of charges towards Occupancy Certificate in the monthly bills and sought for refund of OC charges collected along with cost of Rs.10,000/-. OPs.1 & 2 have contested the complaint. It is their case that such directions cannot be sought against them, since the Complainant has not obtained OC from competent authority and her building itself 3 Appeal No.453/2020 constructed in violation of all norms and byelaws. In view of rival contentions of the parties to the complaint, the District Forum held an enquiry, thereby allowed the complaint in part and directed OPs.1 & 2 not to claim the levy of charges towards OC in the monthly bills in respect of RR.No.NW120248 regarding water and sanity charges in respect of building no.59/1, 15th main, 6th cross, Nandini layout, Bengaluru. Further directed OPs.1 & 2 to adjust the levy collected in respect of OC to the pending and future water and sanity bills and awarded Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost. It is this order is assailed in this appeal contending that the District Commission has passed the order contrary to the facts and law governed to BWS&SB and BBMP.
5. Let us examine the materials placed on record by the parties to the complaint. They are Demand note dtd.27.06.2017, Acknowledgement, Bills, Letter to OPs dtd.17.10.2017. These are the documents produced by the Complainant. On the contrary besides filing affidavit evidence of Assistant Executive Engineer, placed AN application submitted by the Complainant seeking water and sewage connection, Circular II dtd.03.03.2016, Official memorandum dtd.22.02.2018, Notification dtd.07.03.2018, Official memorandum 4 Appeal No.453/2020 dtd.03.04.2018 and 10.04.2018. These official memorandums coupled with circular II dtd.03.03.2016 are not at all appreciated by the District Commission, while passing impugned order. The Complainant has sought for direction against OPs.1 & 2 not to claim the levy of charges towards OC in the monthly bills and further sought for refund of said collected OC charges. Now, a question may arisen, whether such directions could be issued against OPs.1 & 2 by Consumer Commission under CPA 1986/2019 ? since the Complainant herein has placed nothing on record to show that her building built on property bearing no.59/1 situated at 15th main, 6th cross, Nandini layout, Bengaluru was as per sanctioned plan obtained from the concerned authorities. Firstly she has failed to place sanctioned building plan coupled with commencement certificate to build the building on the said property and in such circumstances, since contention of OPs is that the construction of the building built by the Complainant is multi-storeyed building consisting Ground and Four Floors without sanctioned plan from BBMP. In other words she has constructed building without obtaining sanction plan from competent authority and to substantiate such contentions, since Complainant placed nothing on record to show that she had obtained valid sanction 5 Appeal No.453/2020 plan from competent authority which was not at all considered by the District Forum, while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for Appellant submits that in view of non- submission of OC, the levy of charges towards OC is in pursuance to the circulars dtd.03.03.2016, 07.03.2018, 03.04.2018 and 10.04.2018 respectively which cannot be held either illegal or they are not competent to enforce to collect such levy charges from Complainant towards OC charges, considering the fact as found from the enquiry that her building was built without obtaining sanction plan from BBMP. In this regard learned counsel for Appellant rightly submitted, these levies use to charge to control and stop the illegal constructions and in order to enforce legal procedure has considerable force. Further submits law violators even without obtaining sanction building plan and by violating building byelaws used to build houses and to control the circulars cited supra are issued by OPs.1 & 2 to impose levy on such connections of water and sanitary which cannot be said either rendering deficiency in service or contrary to any law has considerable force.
6. We have also to take notice of the fact that, the Complainant even before the Commission failed to place sanction plan and the OC to substantiate her case to hold OPs.1 & 2 have imposed 6 Appeal No.453/2020 levy contrary to the cited circulars. In such circumstances, we are of the view the District Forum has committed grave error in directing OPs.1 & 2 not to claim the levy of charges towards OC in the monthly bills in respect of RR.No.NW120248 regarding water and sanity charges in respect of building no.59/1 and further committed grave error in directing OPs.1 & 2 to adjust collected OC charges towards pending and future water and sanitary bills. In such conclusion, awarding litigation cost in favour of the Complainant at Rs.2,000/- does not arise at all. Hence Commission proceed to allow the appeal. Consequently set aside the impugned order dtd.24.02.2020 passed in CC/1575/2018 on the file of Bengaluru urban, District Commission and as a result dismissed the complaint with no order as to cost.
7. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for needful.
8. Send copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member *NS*