AMAR SINGH SODHI Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.