State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manasarovar Heights Iii Apartment ... vs Mr. Bhupender Singh, on 24 March, 2026
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUM ER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COM M ISSION : HYDERABAD.
F.A.No. 231 OF 2020
AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.146/2017
DISTRICT CONSUM ER COM M ISSION, RANGA REDDY
Between:
The Manasarovar Heights-III Apartments
Owners Co-operative Society Limited,
Registered under mutually Aided
Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 and
The AP Apartments (Promotion of Construction and ownership)
Act, 1987, Having its registered office at:
Club House, Manasarovar Heights-III, Hasmathpet,
Secunderabad- 500 009,
Represented by its Secretary.
...........Appellant/ Opposite Party
And:
Mr.Bhupender Singh,
S/o Rajendheer Singh,
Aged 51 years, Occ.: Legal Practitioner,
R/o H.No.1-17-43, Ramnagar Colony,
Alwal, Secunderabad - 500 010.
........Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party : M/s. P.V.Aruna Kumari
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: Sri K. Yadagiri Rao
HON'BLE SM T. JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SM T. M EENA RAMANATHAN, M EMBER - (NJ)
HON'BLE SM T. R.S. RAJESHREE, M EMBER - (NJ)
TUESDAY, THE 24th DAY OF M ARCH
TW O THOUSAND TW ENTY SIX
*******
Order :
PER HON'BLE SM T. M EENA RAM ANATHAN, M EMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)
1.The appeal is filed u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Opposite Party, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission, Ranga Reddy, dated 13.02.2020 in CC 146/2017, where under, the opposite party is directed not to disconnect the electricity and water supply to the complainant's flat No.244, II Floor, 5th Block, in the Manasarovar Heights-3, 2 Apartments, Sai Sagar Enclave, Manovikasnagar, Hasmathpet, Secunderabad. The opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing inconvenience, hardship and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. Time for compliance is 30 days, failing which the opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as punitive damages to the complainant".
2. The parties are herein after referred to as they were arrayed before the District Commission, as complainant and opposite party.
3. a) The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant along with his mother is the joint owner of residential flat No.244, II Floor, 5th Block, in the Manasarovar Heights-3, Apartments, Sai Sagar Enclave, Manovikasnagar, Hasmathpet, Secunderabad. The apartment was given on rent to Dr.Radha Vardha and she has been his tenant for more than six years. The apartment was purchased by the complainant on 03.02.2009. Some of the flat owners formed an Association and registered the same on 31.05.2014 under the Co- operative Societies Act. The complainant became a member of the association on 17.11.2014 vide membership No.3698. From the date of acquiring membership, he claims he never received any notice from the office bearers of the opposite party. In the month of April 2017, out of the blue, he received an email requesting him to pay the corpus fund. He was informed that he had to pay an amount of Rs.36,000/- @ Rs.1,000/- per month for 36 months and in addition he would have to pay the regular water and maintenance charges issued by the Association/opposite party. He submits that he paid Rs.6,000/- vide Cheque No.000021 towards corpus fund. For the balance amount, he was informed that he would have to pay a penalty for the delayed payment along with balance of corpus fund. He never received any notice or communication regarding payment of corpus fund and questioned the opposite party as to how they can levy penalty for delayed payment. Inspite of the unfairness, he paid the balance amount of Rs.31,000/- on 29.04.2017.
3b) It is further submitted that the opposite party had disconnected the electricity supply to his flat before he paid the dues, which reveals the deficiency of the opposite party. The opposite party is not allowing him to rent the apartment to anyone else after his previous tenant was forced to vacate as the electricity supply was disconnected. Further the opposite party is asking the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the delayed payment towards the corpus fund. The complainant issued a legal notice on 10.06.2017 to restore the electricity and water connection but there was no response from them nor did they restore the electricity and water connection. He has preferred the Consumer Complaint as the opposite party failed to provide the services as per the byelaws of the Association and illegally disconnected water and electricity to his apartment without any notice. Hence, for the loss and agony sustained he has filed the present complaint for the reliefs as prayed for.
4. a) Written version of opposite party :- The opposite party is a Co-operative Society managing the affairs of a residential community and is not a service provider. Every member of the society is liable to pay maintenance charges as determined by the general body from time to time and in case of default, the said member can be penalized as per clause 9.39 of the bye-laws. The complainant is a member and is also governed by the bye-laws. Penalty is enforced by way of disruption/disconnection of essential supplies or services enjoyed by the apartment owner and include supply of water and electricity. As per the records of the society, the owners of flat No.244, Block 5, are habitual defaulters. Receipt of notices were also refused and the opposite party had to affix notices on their door. Despite issuance of the notices, the complainant failed to pay and this opposite party was constrained to take the action of disconnections of utility services to the flat. The outstanding dues accumulated to Rs.84,000/- till March 2016. After letter dated 02.04.2017 was issued towards disconnection of services, Rs.30,000/- was received as part payment and supply was restored 4 immediately. However the complainant defaulted again resulting in the disconnection of services in the last week of April 2017. Services were restored on receipt of part payment of Rs.31,000/-. On 01.06.2017 services were disconnected once again and restored upon the ex-parte and interim orders of the District Commission. As on this date, the outstanding maintenance dues owed by the complainant is Rs.52,783/-, suppressing all the material facts, the complainant has wrongfully obtained the ex-parte order dated 07.07.2017. The complainant has a history of being a defaulter and he is resorting to such steps. It is prayed that the District Commission be pleased to dismiss the Consumer Complaint with exemplary costs.
5. Before the Commission below, complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to A10. One Sri Satish Kumar Putcha, Secretary of opposite party Association, filed evidence affidavit as DW1 and got marked as Ex.B1 to B8. Both parties have filed their written arguments respectively.
6. Aggrieved by the above orders, the Opposite Party preferred this appeal contending that the Commission below failed to consider the following grounds:
The Commission below had merely recorded the contentions/submissions of both the parties in the impugned order especially at paragraph 5 thereof and thereafter straightway passed the directions under paragraph 6 of the impugned order awarding compensation without assigning any reasons for its conclusion;
That the Commission below did not refer to any of the evidence or material placed on record by the appellant while passing the impugned order. If the Commission below had properly looked into and appreciated the evidence filed by the appellant, it would not have passed the impugned order of this nature.
That the Commission below failed to appreciate the fact that as on the date of filing of written version, the Respondent owes an amount of Rs.52,783/- to the appellant Association which is clearly reflected from the 5 ledger Statement of respondent's flat and marked as Ex.B3.
That the impugned order reflects the gross non-application of mind on the part of the Commission below.
With these grounds and others that will be urged at the time of arguments, requested to set aside the order of the Commission below and to dismiss the complaint.
7. On 25.02.2026 there was no representation for the appellant though posted conditionally for hearing. Heard the arguments of counsel for respondent. The matter was reserved for orders. The counsel was permitted to file citations relied by him if any, within one week from the date of reserved matter and the same was availed by him.
The respondent counsel relied upon the following judgment:-
In AIR 2008 Calcutta 66 in Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay and another vs. Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation Limited and others, dated 10.01.2008.
A perusal of the above said judgment, reveals that the subject matter pertains to installation of a separate meter and the complainant Mr.Mukherjee who was residing in the portion of the premises deposited the requisite amount in compliance with the direction of C.E.S.C. Due to the objections of the other occupants supply could not be effected. The facts and circumstances in the cited judgment are not relevant to the present case on hand. Undisputedly, electricity and water are essential services but paying the maintenance charges and bills is also a part of the responsibility of the consumer.
8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Commission suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with in any manner ? To what relief ?
69. POINT: It is the main grievance of the complainant that he never received any notice or communication from the opposite party and he was asked to pay penalty for the delay in paying the corpus amount. Although, he paid the due amount, electricity to his flat was disconnected. In their defense the opposite party has urged that the EGM held on March 16, 2014 proposed that a corpus fund of Rs.36,000/- @ Rs.1,000/- per month shall be collected from the members and a resolution to the said effect was passed on November 30th , 2014. This was duly intimated to all the members of the Society but the complainant, who is also a member of the Society, failed to pay the corpus fund on time and was subjected to penalty as per the bye-laws of the Society.
10. Ex.A5 - A letter addressed by the complainant's mother, who is also the joint owner of the Apartment, submitted that for non- communications for corpus funds, the complainant is not liable and for non-acceptance of cheque payment is not justifiable. This letter is dated 29.04.2017. Prior to addressing this letter, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque towards corpus fund. This amount is for 05 months due for each flat and the receipt is dated 16.04.2017. After paying this due, the complainant's mother has addressed the letter vide Ex.A6- stating that no communication has been received by her from the opposite party. It is a very contradictory representation and discloses the fact that the complainant and his mother very well aware that they had to pay amounts to the opposite party for maintenance and towards corpus fund.
11. All the Apartment owners have been requested to make payment towards maintenance and water on or before 10th of every month to avoid penalty. It is clearly communicated that cash is not accepted. This communication by way of email is filed vide Ex.A2. The complainant has transferred a sum of Rs.62,000/- by way of NEFT on 29.04.2017.
7The issue that must be addressed is whether the opposite party disconnected the electricity supply before or after recovering the dues from the complainant.
12. Admittedly, the complainant is joint owner with his mother of two flats in the opposite party society. The Society was registered on 31.05.2014 as evidence vide Ex.B2.
Ex.B3 is the ledger Account of apartment 244/5- belonging to the complainant. The Statement for the period 01.04.2011 to 24.08.2017 reveals that the complainant has to pay an overdue amount of Rs.52,783/- to the Society. The opposite party has issued a notice on the complainant for both the flats on 30.09.2016 - vide Ex.B2. In this notice, the dues are shown as Rs.64,800/- as on 31.08.2016 and a warning is also issued that suitable action will be initiated for recovery of dues to the Society. Another notice was also issued with a warning that disconnection of water and electricity to the flat will initiated after 07 days from the date of this notice without further intimation. The complainant did not accept the notice and the same is endorsed on this letter. Ex.B5 - dated 02.04.2017 is the letter addressed to the Manager of opposite party to disconnect the electricity supply to the following apartments :-
"Flat No.214/5; 444/5; 521/4; 542/7; 922/3; 940/9; 941/9; 227/2; 244/5 and 405/6".
13. A perusal of the record clearly discloses that supply was disconnected on 02.04.2017 after several letters were addressed to the complainant to pay the amounts and he was also advised to make the delayed payments failing which he would have to pay a penalty. He made the payments only on 29.04.2017. We find that the Commission below did not peruse the records carefully and directed the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- needlessly. The amounts were paid subsequent to the disconnection and restoration of supply and it is also to be noted that the complainant has not paid the maintenance charges for many months and is a regular defaulter. The disconnection of electricity supply took place 8 on 02.04.2017 and the Consumer Complaint was filed on 03.07.2017 along with IA 145/017 seeking restoration of power supply. IA 145/2017 was allowed by the Commission below without any verification of records or notice to the opposite party. There is visible material suppression on the part of the complainant and the Commission below failed to study the records carefully before passing the impugned order.
14. In such circumstances, we consider that compensation awarded is gravely erroneous and in view of the aforesaid discussions, vis-à-vis the grounds urged, the appeal is allowed.
15. In the result, the appeal is allowed without costs by setting aside the impugned order, dated 13.02.2020 in CC 146/2017 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Ranga Reddy.
The opposite party is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by it, while prosecuting the appeal along with accrued interest after the expiry of revision period.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer on the System; corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Court on this the 24th day of March' 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT M EMBER-NJ M EMBER-NJ
Dt: 24.03.2026
AD*