State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Commissioner, Bwssb . vs Dr. H. Narayana . on 10 June, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/1171/2023 ( Date of Filing : 26 Jun 2023 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 31/03/2023 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/498/2019 of District Bangalore 3rd Additional) 1. COMMISSIONER, BWSSB . CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALROE,BENGALURU URBAN,KARNATAKA-560 009. BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (TECHNICAL). BWSSB CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE,BENGALURU URBAN,KARNATAKA-560 009. BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA 3. THE ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER., N7 DIVISION DOUBLE ROAD B SECTOR,YELAHANKA NEW TOWN ,YELAHANKA,BANGALORE-560 064. BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. DR. H. NARAYANA . AGED 72 YEARS,R/AT. NO. 90, 14TH MAIN, 14TH CROSS WEST OF CHORD ROAD BANGALORE,BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA-560 086. BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 10 Jun 2024 Final Order / Judgement Date of filing:26.06.2023 Date of Disposal:10.06.2024 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) DATED: 10th DAY OF JUNE 2024 PRESENT Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER: Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO. 1171/2023 O R D E R
BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by OP in CC/498/2019 on the file of III Additional DCDRC, Bengaluru, aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2023. (The parties to this appeal will be referred as to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission) The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsel.
Now the points that arise for consideration of this Commission would be whether impugned order dated 31.03.2023 passed in CC/498/2019 does call for an interference of this Commission?
The complainant has raised a Consumer Complaint with a direction to OP to quash the demand notice for Rs.1,82,659/- raised under notice dated 18.02.2018 and further sought directions to OP to install new tested meter and resume water supply by awarding Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. The OPs has contested the complaint and denied the allegation of complainant and submitted the complaint is not maintainable under law when there are provisions made to prefer an appeal to the appropriate authority. In view of rival contentions of the parties to the complaint, the District Commission held an enquiry by receiving affidavit and documentary evidence on behalf of parties to the complaint and proceed to allow the complaint in part directing OP Nos.1 to 3 to raise fresh bill with regard to the water and sanitary connection of the complainant's house by taking into consideration the amount paid by the complainant from January 2016 and as per the decision taken before water adalath and to restore the water connection forthwith. Further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- compensation towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. It is this order being assailed in this appeal contending that the DCDRC has erred in quashing the bill dated 20.02.2018 for Rs.1,82,659/- in view of appeal provisions are provided under BWSSB Act and regulations. The billing is issued as per the framework of BWSSB which is not called in question when appeal provisions are made under the said Act itself. The DCDRC has committed error in passing impugned order and the impugned order is liable to be set aside as contrary to facts and law.
On the contrary the Complainant/respondent submits imposing rain water harvesting penalty is illegal and incorrect as per the BWSSB norms and the DCDRC has rightly held bill dated 18.02.2018 cannot be enforced and rightly directed to raise fresh bill with regard to the water and sanitary connection of the complainant's house by taking into consideration the amount paid by him from January 2016 which in our view has some considerable force taking in to consideration of the measurement of the built house. The OP has raised the bill at Rs.15,883/- for the month of August 2016 towards rain water harvesting which could not be said justifies since it is shown his site dimension is less than 216 sq.mt., for which khatha documents from BBMP are submitted and the DCDRC has rightly appreciated. It is true that Commission has no power to quash the notice issued by OPs/appellants but facts remain that the complainant has shown that dimension of his site is below 216 sq.mt, as such the OP has to act as per such dimension, failing which S.100 of CPA 2019 could be invoked, since the OP has imposed penalty of fine towards rain water harvesting, which was rightly considered by the District Commission and directed to raise a fresh bill which cannot be said quashing of a demand notice or a bill. What the DCDRC in its order held bill dated 18.02.2018 for Rs.1,82,659/- cannot be enforced because it was not in accordance with the act and rules since included the amount which the complainant need not pay. It does not mean to say that complainant is not liable to pay any dues towards BWSSB but to pay in order what he should have to pay. It is therefore, we are of the view that DCDRC in its order rightly directed OP Nos.1 to 3 to raise fresh bill with regard to the water and sanitary connection of complainant's house by taking into consideration the amount paid by complainant from January 2016 and the decision taken before water adalath for which no harm or injustice would be caused either to the complainant or to the appellants/OPs. In so far as the restoration of water connection to the house of complainant is concern, we are of the view; DCDRC has directed OPs to restore water connection in right perceiving the dispute. However, awarding of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation in consideration of rival contentions of the parties to the complaint and in view of directions issued against OPs to raise fresh bill with regard to the water and sanitary connection, is not justified but awarding cost at Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost which has to be held maintainable. In such view of the matter, the impugned order needs to be modified under the following terms:
The Appeal is hereby allowed in part and directed OP Nos.1 to 3 to raise fresh bill with regard to the water charges and sanitary charges to the house of complainant taking into consideration the amount already paid from January 2016 and as per the decision taken before water adalath.Further they are directed to restore water connection as already ordered and do pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost within 45 days.
Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to District Commission for needful.
Remit back the LCR to District Commission and send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal for information.
Lady Member Judicial Member *GGH* [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER