HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Janak Dulari

THIS appeal has been filed against order dated 2.6.2002 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (Haryana) in Complaint Case No. 57 of 2000. The contextual facts in brief are as under.

THE respondent/complainant is resident of House No. 465, Urban Estate-II, Hisar (Haryana). As per averments, a bill No. 12 dated January, 1998 for Rs. 5,328 was sent to respondent/complainant towards arrears of water charges for the period June, 1989 to January, 1996, though the bills for this period already have been paid by her. THE respondent/complainant has submitted that she learnt that consequent to dismissal of CWP No. 1575 of 1989 in Punjab and Haryana High Court, the arrears were charged along with other residents of Urban Estate-II, Hisar. She represented to the appellant/OP HUDA that she was not a petitioner/party in the CWP No. 1575 of 1989 but it has been alleged that she was warned to pay the disputed amount of arrears for water/sewerage charges, failing which she will be liable to pay a heavy penalty. THE respondent/complainant paid the amount for the disputed period vide receipt No. 240 dated 19.1.1998. THE complainant has alleged that this amount has been charged due to exploitation of the consumers and huge bill raised as arrears/water and sewerage charges by taking undue advantage especially she was not even the party to the aforesaid writ petition. THE complainant has alleged the above stated charges as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. A prayer has been made for a direction to refund the amount with interest and to award heavy costs/damages and litigation expenses in the interest of justice, equity and fair play. It has also been prayed that the concerned HUDA Officers be imposed financial penalties. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP - HUDA , the preliminary objection taken is that complaint has not been signed and verified, hence not maintainable. No negligence or deficiency in service has been alleged and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. It is further stated that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the complainant is not a consumer. No amount has been deposited with the OP. Further it is stated in Clause No. 15 of letter dated 22.4.1994 that all disputes concerning the aforesaid allotment shall be referred to Chief Administrator or any other official appointed by him and accordingly this dispute should have been referred to above stated authority and complaint before the Forum is not maintainable in view of complainant having agreed to abide the above clause.

In reply on merits, the factum of complainant being owner of house No. 465, Urban Estate-II, Hisar is admitted and it is stated that no amount is outstanding on account of water charges from the complainant. With regard to disputed bill, it is stated that water bill No. 12/594 issued in January, 1998 amounting to Rs. 5,328 towards arrears of water charges for the period June, 89 to January, 96 was issued as the respondent/complainant had paid according to old charges and this amount became payable consequent to dismissal of Civil Writ Petition No. 1575 of 1989 by Punjab and Haryana High Court, filed by the Resident Welfare Association challenging the hike in water rates by HUDA during September, 1987. Further it is stated that the Resident Welfare Association did not file any list of the members in the High Court and the Hon''ble Court granted interim stay in the month of 1989 against the recovery of enhanced rates of water. The stay remained in force upto January, 1996 and was applicable to all the plot holders of Urban Estate-II, Hisar. The answering OP has denied the charges that it has taken any undue advantage of the complainant. The disputed bill was issued to the complainant along with all other plot holders of Urban Estate-II, Hisar since the Court had not granted any relief to the petitioners. Hence, there is no question of HUDA being strong and taking undue advantage as alleged by the complainant. Since the payment was made by her prior to January, 1996 at unrevised rates, the bill in accordance with the revised rates and along with all other residents of Urban Estate-II was charged. The HUDA Authority was legally entitled to recover the charges. Hence, the bill was legal and issued keeping in view the judgment of Hon''ble High Court.

IN evidence, on behalf of respondent/complainant Sh. Kuldeep Saini has filed his evidence by way of affidavit along with photocopy of reallotment letter and receipt dated 19.1.1998 whereas no evidence has been led by the appellant/respondent- HUDA. The District Forum held the OPs deficient in services and held that it cannot levy surcharge on the arrears of the bill on the original amount due from the complainant as she had already deposited the entire amount with the respondent. The excess was directed to be refunded after deducting the original amount without surcharge. The OPs were held liable to pay interest @ 15% p.a from the date of deposit till realisation. A direction was given to comply with the order within one month.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the District Forum, present appeal has been filed by HUDA pleading inter alia that the District Forum committed an error by ignoring the decision of CWP No. 1575 of 1989 consequent to which the appellant/HUDA was entitled to raise arrears of the bills pertaining to the disputed period and also add 10% surcharge on the due amount after every two months, on the same lines on which water bills on old rates were issued to the allottees. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground as the Forum ignored the fact that these were issued according to the verdict of the High Court and no reconsideration of the same by the Consumer Forum is permissible. The bills of arrears were issued to all the plot holders of Urban Estate-II and no discrimination of any kind was made with respect to any plot holder of the locality. The order of the District Forum is also erroneous on the ground in directing HUDA not to impose on any surcharge on the original amount due from the complainant and direction to the appellant authority to refund the amount with 15% interest from the date of deposit. It is submitted that the surcharge has been imposed rightly. A prayer has been made to set aside the order and accept the appeal with costs. Adverting to the merit of appeal : upon perusal of pleading of the parties, record of the case, impugned order and the grounds of appeal, we are of the considered opinion that contention of appellant has merit that the District Forum has not appreciated the facts of the case as it directed the appellant/OP to refund the excess amount after deducting the original due amount without surcharges and also awarded 15% interest from the date of deposit. The moot question to be decided in the instant case is whether the respondent/complainant was liable to pay enhanced amount charged on account of arrears of water/sewerage charges ? Our answer is in the affirmative. The complainant was resident of same locality, Urban Estate-II, Hisar, though not a party to the Civil Writ Petition No. 1575 of 1989, since the enhanced rate was upheld and was applicable after dismissal of above mentioned writ petition decided by Hon''ble High Court. Being the consumer, the complainant is availing the services/facilities like all other residents of the locality due to which she is equally liable to pay all the charges levied in accordance with rules/laws/by-laws. In the face of the admitted fact that she has paid the charges on old rates and the bill in question was towards revised enhanced charges and (writ petition challenging the enhancement having been dismissed by the Hon''ble High Court), the complainant/respondent was issued the bill along with other residents of the locality, which by not stretch of imagination cannot be termed as arbitrary or unjustified. There is nothing on record to prove the contention of the complainant that this bill has been issued to her in contravention of any rules or terms and conditions of the appellant HUDA. The only ground urged by her that she was not liable to pay the above bill as she was not party to the writ petition, cannot be accepted as no exemption or special right got vested in her under which she was not liable to pay the enhanced amount by way of bill in question issued to her. In view of the above discussion, we hold that District Forum was in error in allowing the complaint in the terms mentioned above. Consequent to above reasoning, we hold that the appeal has considerable merit and is allowed.

APPEAL accepted.

THE order of the District Forum is set aside. THE complainant is held liable to pay the bill under the same terms and conditions as applicable to other residents of the same locality. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. Appeal allowed.