Amar Singh Sodhi vs Sub Divisional Engineer

BY way of this revision, petitioner has challenged order dated 10.1.2011, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short, ''State Commission ''). Along with it, an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 67 days has also been filed.

BRIEF facts are that petitioner/complainant filed a complaint on the allegations that he was the owner of House No.108, Sector-4, Panchkula, possession of which was granted by the respondent/ opposite party on 27.7.1981 and construction permission was granted on 10.8.1992. Petitioner applied for water connection on 7.12.1982 and deposited fee of Rs.125/-. It was further alleged that in spite of the water connection, no water ever flowed in the pipe line till December 1983. Inspite of numerous representations, petitioner was forced to pay Rs.2,500/- for water which he had not used even a single drop and no development work was done and he was forced to pay Rs.11,970/- for granting the occupation certificate. Petitioner received bill for water usage for Rs.356/- for the period of 17.9.2002 to 17.11.2002, which he could not deposit. Petitioner received another bill for the period of 17.9.2002 to 17.11.2002 for Rs.356/- and Rs.2,412/- on the flat rate. Although, the flat rate is permissible and printed on the back of the bill issued is Rs.250/- per month. Instead of charging the same, respondent has charged Rs.1,200/- per month as water charges during construction of houses before issue of Occupation Certificate which was highly irregular and against the principle of justice. Respondent/OP in its written statement has taken preliminary objection stating that the complaint is time barred. On merits, it is stated that the allegations of no water flow in the pipe line till December, 1983 is incorrect. Rather it was clarified that all the service i.e., water supply, sewerage, road etc. had already been completed on 27.2.1980, before offering the possession of plot. Further, plea of respondent is that, the amount in question of Rs.11,970/-, was deposited by the petitioner for the violation of building plan.

District Forum, Panchkula, vide its order dated 11.2.2004, dismissed the complaint.

Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, challenged the same before the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, vide the impugned order. Hence, this revision petition.

IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the fora below did not consider this fact that Occupation Certificate was granted on 15.11.1991 which was towards extension fee as mentioned on the receipt and not for violation of the alleged building bye-laws. Other contention is that the petitioner has already paid entire sewerage charges and there was no fresh demand and as such, demand notice dated 4.11.2003 was not justified and same has been issued after about 10-12 years, after issuance of the occupation certificate. However, the sewerage pipe was installed and connection was given to the petitioner by the respondent themselves for which petitioner has already deposited the fee. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. As far as application for condonation of delay is concerned, for the reasons mentioned in the application, delay is condoned. Application stands allowed. Now coming to the merits of the case, District Forum in its order has held ; "5. At the very outset, it may be noticed that the OP has taken the preliminary objection that the complaint is time barred. In this regard, it may be noticed that in para No.5 of the complaint, it is alleged that fee of Rs.125/- was deposited vide receipt No.399 dated 27.12.1982 but inspite of the water connection, no water ever flowed in the pipe line till Dec., 1983. In this view of the matter, if the complainant was infact aggrieved, then he might have taken the recourse of law within the stipulated period but here in the instant case, the complaint came to be filed after about ten years which itself is highly belated and on this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed but since evidence has been led, so we consider it proper to decide the complaint on merits as well. 6. At this juncture, it may be recalled that in para No.6, the complainant has alleged that in spite of the water connection, no water ever flowed in the pipe line till Dec., 1983 in reply where of the OP has stated that all the services i.e., water supply etc. had already completed on 27.2.1980 before offering possession of the plot. Although, the complainant has alleged that he was forced to pay Rs.2,500/- but the period of the bill was not mentioned despite of the specific objection taken by the OP in the written statement in the corresponding para. With regard to Rs.11,970/- the OP has already clarified that the amount in question was deposited by him for the violation of the building plan committed at the time compounded by the competent authority and construction of building and thereafter, issued the Occupation Certificate. As such, the amount was not that of development charges. Even, it has been clarified that the first bill was served on average basis and second bill at flat rate as per instructions printed on the back side of the bill and also on the basis of notification dated 18.1.2K, the copy of which is Ex.R-1. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality or deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Moreover, it is not specifically clear as to what bill has been challenged and no such specific bill or copy thereof has been produced on record. 7. After due consideration, we are of the considered opinion that the instant compliant is devoid of any merit. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. "

STATE Commission, while affirming the findings of the District Forum, in its impugned order has observed ; "Complainant came present in the Commission and admitted that he had not got sewerage connection regularized stating that as occupation certificate stands issued, there was no necessity of seeking regular sewerage connection. The contention does not appear to be sound as in Annexure R-3. OP has specifically mentioned that only partial completion was issued that he should visit the office of regularization of his sewerage connection, so that the completion certificate could be issued. However, instead of getting the sewerage connection regularized complainant approached the Consumer Forum. Once complainant himself was at fault in not getting sewerage connection regularized and not getting the complete completion certificate, he could not be heard to say that since completion has been issued and there was no necessity of complete occupation and thus was not liable to water charges. Complainant himself being at fault could not blame the OP-respondent for levying water charges, chargeable to incomplete buildings. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed being devoid any merit. "

Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''Act ''), this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is also well settled that under Section 21 (b) of the Act, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited.

Hon ''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed ; "Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora. "

PETITIONER in its complaint has sought the following reliefs ; "Suitable amount of compensation be awarded to offset the losses, which petitioner has already suffered. That HUDA should be directed to correct their own record regarding sewerage connection and regularize the same. That HUDA should develop the area i.e. the whole street as shown in the picture para No.13. That the bill No.172901 dated 21.6.2003 be cancelled and water charges be charged as under : 17.9.2002 17.11.2002 Rs. 356.00 17.11.2002 17.1.2003 Rs. 500.00 17.1.2003 17.3.2003 Rs. 544.00 Total Rs.1400.00 "

As per record, petitioner did not place the original bills pertaining to the water charges nor copy of the same were filed before the District Forum, which fact find mentioned in the order of the District Forum. Under these circumstances, inference has to be drawn against the petitioner for not placing the disputed water bills before the District Forum. Consequently, District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint. Further, no illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the State Commission while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

UNDER these circumstances, there is no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to me to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Act. Since, two Fora below have given detailed and reasoned orders which does not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. Thus, present petition is hereby, dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of Rs.5,000/-, by way of demand draft in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account " of this Commission, within four weeks from today. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then he shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization. List on 2.11.2012 for compliance.