State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
R. Seshadri, President vs B.S.Y. Krupanidhi, Secretary on 27 March, 2012
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF MARCH 2012 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAMANNA : PRESIDENT SMT.RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER Appeal No.457/2012 Sri. P.R. Sanjeeva Rao, 'Atria Villa', Flat No. GF 2, Palace Guttahalli Main Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore 560003. ( In person ) 1. R. Seshadri, President (Since resigned) 2. B.S.Y. Krupanidhi, Secretary & other Executive Council Members as per Affidavit filed on 15/02/2012 @ the Forum C/o 'Atria Villa', Flat NO. GF 4, Palace Guttahalli Main Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore 560003 Rep. Attria Villa Apartments Owners Association, Regd. under KSR Act 1960. 3. BWSSB, Phani Bhusan, AEE Office of the Asst. Executive Engineer, North-2, Sub Division, 18th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore 560055 Complainant No. 1 before the DF .Appellant/s -Versus- R-1 is Opposite Party No.1, R-2 & 3 are Opposite Party 2 & 3 before the DF .Respondent/s O R D E R
HONBLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the CP Act 1986 by the appellant / complainant to set aside the common order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the I Addl., DF, Bangalore in Complaint No. 18/2012 whereby his complaint came to be dismissed directing to return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned under Regulation No. 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005. Assailing the same he has come up with this appeal on various grounds.
2. In this appeal we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. We have also gone through the averments made in the appeal memorandum as well as the findings recorded by the DF in dismissing the complaint.
3. The appellant herein who is none other than the complainant No.2 before the DF filed a complaint seeking for a direction to respondent No.3 / Opposite Party 3 that is BWSSB to provide direct meter connection to the ground floor flat No. 2 and 3 or alternatively authorize the complainant to take connection from the licensed plumber or direct the association to release BWSSB water to the flat of the complainant and direct the association to reimburse the water charges of Rs. 30,000/-.
4. The case of the appellant/complainant is that, Atria Villa apartment owners association formed a villa apartment of 39 flat owners under the Karnataka Societies Regulation Act 1960 on 11.07.2003. The association did not get the accounts audited and failed to acquire the original title deeds and file annual returns.
Therefore, the Registrar of Societies served notice on 12.10.2011 and issued an order dated 14.12.2011. The Atria Villa holding private limited obtained reconnection of BWSSB on 08.07.2004 in the name of the association after payment of deposit of Rs. 11,36,769/-. In spite of repeated requests the association refused to release water for domestic consumption nor issued NOC for obtaining direct connection by separate meter. But continued to collect reimbursement towards minimum charges levied by BWSSB for non use of the water for about 8 year but, the khata stands in the name of the complainant and that therefore they wanted separate connection, the same was not given. In spite of several correspondence the association refused to provide car parking area facility for some though provided by the developers. The technical committee has full final powers whereas the executive committee whom it report has Rs. 10,000/- limit thereby making general body redundant. They have encroached common property for the purpose of rent for the outsiders, allowing ironing of cloths in the car parking area without fire protection, executing capital expenses beyond authority.
Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint.
5. After service of notice respondent No.1 though served remained absent. Respondent No. 2 the Secretary of the Association filed its version contending that the complainant has not made association as a party but included the President and Secretary in their individual names as parties and therefore it is not maintainable. The complainant No.1 was the Secretary of the Association in the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 and he was a member of the executive council for the year 2009-10. But they failed to submit the accounts to the auditor nor submitted the audited accounts to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies during their tenure. The OPs prays for dismissal of the complaint on various other grounds.
6. The respondent No.1 and 2 are none other than the office bearers and the Opposite Party 3 is the Assistant Executive Engineer of BWSSB. If the BWSSB after receiving the money without valid reason or beyond law refuse to give water connection then the complainants may approach the appropriate authorities. Therefore, this cannot be a consumer dispute. The DF has observed that the complainants have not produced any property for any consideration from BWSSB nor the BWSSB has sold any service to the complainant for any consideration. Therefore, there is no relation ship of consumer and the service provider between the complainant and the OPs. There may be some internal dispute between the parties for which the complainant cannot approach the Consumer Forum under the provisions of the C.P Act, 1986. The appellant/complainant in spite of seeking remedy elsewhere wrongly approached the DF making allegations of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of respondent/OPs, which in our view is not just and proper.
7. Being the members of the association, they cannot file a complaint against the officer bearers, which in our view is not correct. Therefore, the DF rightly rejected the allegations of the complainant that is a sum of Rs. 30,000/- collected as BWSSB charges, which was collected for the year 2004 to 2012 as minimum charges that was levied by the BWSSB authorities.
Therefore, we dont see any reasons of relationship of a consumer between the appellant/complainant and respondent No.1 and 2 and also a public servant that is respondent No.3 who is nothing to do with the internal dispute among the appellant/complainant and OPs 1 and 2.
Therefore, we dont notice any good reasons to interfere with the impugned order passed by the DF. Therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, we pass the following:
O R D E R Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Rhr*