RAVI PALTA Vs. NARINDER SINGH & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order dated 01.09.2011, passed by the U.T. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in First Appeal No. 69/2011, Narinder Singla vs. Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & Anr., has been challenged by way of these two revision petitions, filed by the respondents/opposite parties 1 and 2, Municipal Corporation Chandigarh and Ravi Palta s/o Ramesh Chand Palta. The State Commission, vide impugned order, accepted the said appeal and modified the order dated 10.03.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, U.T. Chandigarh.

(2.) The brief facts are that the complainant, Narinder Singla s/o Manoj Kumar, claims himself to be the landlord and owner of industrial plot no. 402, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh, measuring 450 sq. ft. on the ground that he is holding the general power of attorney, executed by the original owner, Anil Gulati. According to him, the OP-2, Ramesh Chand Palta is the tenant of the landlord in the said property. The complainant had obtained a regular water connection from the OP-1, Municipal Corporation Chandigarh for which, he was paying the regular bills etc. The complainant stated that he came to know that the OP-2, Ravi Palta was using illegal water connection from the main public health line of Municipal Corporation Chandigarh and hence, indulging in theft of water for his business of filling water dispensers and campers. The complainant Narinder Singla informed the OP-1, Municipal Corporation Chandigarh on 02.02.2009, regarding theft of water by Ravi Palta, following which, the Corporation disconnected the said illegal connection. However, on 13.02.2009, the Corporation sent him a bill dated 11.02.2009 for Rs. 1,38,000/-, asking the complainant to pay the said amount as penal rent for the illegal water connection. The case of the complainant is that he had a regular water connection from the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and nothing was due against him for the said connection. However, since the illegal water connection had been taken by the tenant, Ravi Palta from the main health line, the Corporation should have realized the said charges from the tenant Ravi Palta. The complainant also alleged that the Corporation, instead of taking action against Ravi Palta, had disconnected the main connection of the complainant as well and stopped water supply to the whole premises. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking direction to the Municipal Corporation to restore his water connection and to set aside the demand raised against him vide bill dated 11.02.2009 and give him compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP-1, Municipal Corporation Chandigarh before the District Forum, in which they stated that the owner of the premises was Anil Gulati and as per their office record, the water connection existed in the name of Anil Gulati. Since the original owner had not been made a party in this complaint, the complaint deserved to be dismissed on this ground alone. The OP-1 further stated that water charges to the extent of Rs. 1,51,800/- were required to be paid by the owner/occupier of the property and hence, they were well within their rights to disconnect the water supply to the premises. It has been stated in the reply that only one water connection was running on the said premises as per their office report. However, when the water meter was got checked at the premises, it was found that one more illegal water connection had been installed by the owner/occupier of the premises. The OP had, therefore, levied penal charges of Rs. 1,51,800/- for the said illegal connection and the same were still to be recovered from the owner/occupier. The OP-1 stated that the complaint in question deserved to be dismissed, as the existence of illegal connection had been admitted by the parties. The District Forum, after taking into account the contentions raised by the parties before them, passed an order on 10.03.2011, the operative portion of which reads as follows:-