APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2009
1. Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Sector 17, Chandigarh.


2. Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Health, Sub Division, Sector 37, Chandigarh.

….Appellants.
Versus
1. Harbans Singh Saini, H.No. 1350, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh.

2. Chief Engineer, UT, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

….Respondents.

BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Present: Sh.Sanjeev Ghai, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.Harbans Singh, respondent No.1 in person.

Ms.Ritu Jain, Assistant District Attorney for respondent No.2.



MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1. This is an appeal filed by the OPs No.2 and 3 against the order dated 29.1.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No.751 of 2008.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant got installed a water meter at his residence on 17.5.2007 and received first bill for Rs.1062/- for the period from 12.5.2007 to 6.7.2007. Due to the excess billing, complainant visited the office of OP No.3, who assured to check the meter as well as water leakage, if any, but OP No.3 did not do so and thereafter another water bill was issued for Rs.3146/- for the period from 6.7.2007 to 15.9.2007 wherein the arrears of Rs.595/- was shown. The complainant again contacted OP No.3 for correction of water bill but nothing was done and the OP No.3 again issued a bill for Rs.4600/- for the period from 15.9.2007 to 15.11.2007 showing arrears of Rs.3344/-. The complainant visited the office of OP No.3 about excess billing and he moved an application about the major fault in the installed meter and for detection of water leakage. In response to which, OP No.3 replaced the water pipe on 23.11.2007 and assured the complainant for correction of the water bills but OP No.3 issued bill dated 2.2.2008 for Rs.4756/- for the period from 15.11.2007 to 15.1.2008 showing arrears of Rs.4726/-. The complainant moved an application dated 4.1.2008 to OP No.3 for correction of water bills but the OP No.3 was informed that the matter may be taken with OP No.2 i.e. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. As such, complainant contacted OP No.2 for correction of water bills but to no avail. Rather, he was issued further water bills of Rs.4824/- for the period from 15.1.2008 to 15.3.2008 showing arrears of Rs.4759/- and then issued a bill for Rs.4998/- for the period from 15.3.2008 to 15.5.2008. It was averred that OP No.3 did not correct the water bills and the actual water bills received by him after the repair done on 23.11.2007 were Rs.30/- & Rs.65/- only. The above said act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service, which caused the complainant great mental tension, agony and physical harassment. Hence, this complaint.

3. Short reply was filed by OP No.1 in which it has been stated that the application dated 13.11.2007 moved by complainant was duly attended but no leakage was found. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. Joint reply was filed by OPs No.2 & 3 in which it was submitted that the water bills were issued to the complainant as per the water consumption of the complainant and actual meter reading. On the request of complainant, the meter was checked and the outlet & inlet part of the meter was found working properly. It was also submitted that the leakage problem did not relate to answering OP and the water pipe, if any, must have been replaced by the maintenance wing of OP No.1 and not by them. It is further submitted that underground leakage was after installation of meter connection, however, the bills have rightly been issued as per the meter readings. Other allegations in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

6. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to overhaul the account of the complainant, to correct the bills and to charge him on average basis taking the average consumption of 12 months after the problem of leakage and fast running of meter. It was further directed that the excess amount, if any, received by the OPs shall be adjusted in the future bills and an intimation about the overhauling of the account shall be issued to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and Rs.500/- as costs of litigation.

7. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the OPs No.2 and 3. Sh.Sanjeev Ghai, Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellants, Sh.Harbans Singh, respondent No.1 has appeared in person and Ms.Ritu Jain, Assistant District Attorney has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. The main point for consideration before us is whether there is negligence on the part of OP No.3 by not maintaining the Government Accommodation provided to the complainant.

8. The contents of paras No.1 and 2 in the appeal have already been written in the complaint and in the reply, so there is no need to reiterate it again. It is further submitted by the appellants that the impugned order passed by the District Forum may be set aside on the ground that the house where the complainant is residing a Government house which belongs to the Chandigarh Administration and the maintenance of the Government houses is only within the domain of Chandigarh Administration whereas Municipal Corporation is only performing the function of water supply to the houses and raising bills for water charges. Therefore the functions of the Municipal Corporation for supply of water are limited upto the water meter installed in the premises and the appellants could not be held responsible for any underground water leakage within the said house which belongs to the Chandigarh Administration and the maintenance of which is the duty of the Chandigarh Administration only. It is further submitted by the appellants that the District Forum while passing the order has not appreciated the fact that the said complaint slip is of the maintenance booth of the office of respondent No.2, which looks after the work of maintenance of the Government Houses. It is submitted that G.I.Pipe was repaired by the office of respondent No.2 on 23.11.2007 and as such there was no fault on the part of appellants. It is further submitted by the appellants that if the meter was working properly, there was no deficiency in service on the part of appellants as the bills were issued by the appellants as per the actual meter reading and consumption recorded by the water meter. It is submitted that appellants cannot be held responsible for any underground water leakage within the house of the complainant as the appellants are responsible only upto the water supply line connected to the meter and for any fault beyond the meter within the premises it is the responsibility of either the owner or the occupier of the house and in the instant case it was the responsibility of the Chandigarh Administration to execute the maintenance work of the Government house in question. It is submitted that once the meter was working properly and bills were issued as per actual consumption then the District Forum could not be said that the account may be overhauled by taking average consumption of 12 months after the problem of leakage was attended to. It is further prayed that in view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua the appellants.

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, respondent No.1, Assistant District Attorney for respondent No.2 and perused the record, we have come to the conclusion that appellant No.1/OP No.2 i.e. Municipal Corporation rightly perform its duty by installing water meter which is working accurately. This meter in question has already been checked and declared ‘OK’ by the appropriate authority. The appellant No.1/OP No.2 has issued the correct bills to the complainant according to the actual consumption of the water. As alleged by appellant No.1/OP No.2 that they have performed their duty by issuing the correct bills according to the actual consumption of water, as regards to the maintenance they are not liable. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of appellant No.1/OP No.2 i.e. Municipal Corporation.

10. As regards to the appellant No.2/OP No.3 i.e. Public Health, it is the duty of the Public Health to maintain the Government Houses, as in this particular house, there was a leakage of water in G.I. Pipes due to which the complainant has to suffer a lot inspite of his many oral and written complaints. The appellant No.2/OP No.3 failed to replace the defective pipes in time due to which the complainant has to pay an extra amount of bills for the excess water due to the leakage, which he has never consumed.

11. According to us, it is not justified that due to the wrong of appellant No.2/OP No.3 i.e. Public Health by not replacing the defective pipes, complainant should be held liable to make the payment of the excess billing due to the leakage of water. The complainant is liable only to pay the amount of the bill to the extent that how much water actually consumed by the complainant. For this purpose, we do agree with the direction given by the District Forum that the Municipal Corporation should charge on the average basis taking average consumption of 12 months after the replacement of the pipes. In our view, the appellant No.1/OP No.2 i.e. Municipal Corporation has rightly issued the bill according to the consumption. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of appellant No.1/OP No.2 i.e. Municipal Corporation. As regard to the appellant No.2/OP No.3 i.e. Public Health is at a fault by not replacing the defective pipes in time due to which the complainant has to suffer a lot and to pay for the extra amount. In our view, the appellant No.2/OP No.3 is deficient in service qua the respondent No.1/complainant and is liable to pay rest of the amount of the bill, which is due against the meter installed at the premises of the complainant to the Municipal Corporation. With these observations as mentioned above, we do modify the order passed by the District Forum to the extent which is directed as under:-

1. We direct the appellant No.1/OP No.2 i.e. Municipal Corporation to overhaul the account of the complainant, to correct the bills and to charge him on average basis taking the average consumption of 12 months after the problem of leakage removed. It is further directed that the excess amount, if any, received by the OPs shall be adjusted in the future bills and an intimation about the overhauling of the account shall be issued to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order as ordered by the District Forum.

2. We further direct the appellant No.2/OP No.3 i.e. Public Health to pay rest of the amount of the bill which is due against this water meter which is installed at the premises of the complainant and further directed the appellant No.2/OP No.3 i.e. Public Health to pay Rs.500/- as costs of litigation to the complainant already awarded by the District Forum.

12. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of with the directions mentioned above.

13. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2009
1. Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

2. Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Health, Sub Division, Sector 37, Chandigarh.

….Appellants.
Versus

1. Harbans Singh Saini, H.No. 1350, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh.
2. Chief Engineer, UT, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
….Respondents.

BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sanjeev Ghai, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.Harbans Singh, respondent No.1 in person.

Ms.Ritu Jain, Assistant District Attorney for respondent No.2.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1. This is an appeal filed by the OPs No.2 and 3 against the order dated 29.1.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No.751 of 2008.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant got installed a water meter at his residence on 17.5.2007 and received first bill for Rs.1062/- for the period from 12.5.2007 to 6.7.2007. Due to the excess billing, complainant visited the office of OP No.3, who assured to check the meter as well as water leakage, if any, but OP No.3 did not do so and thereafter another water bill was issued for Rs.3146/- for the period from 6.7.2007 to 15.9.2007 wherein the arrears of Rs.595/- was shown. The complainant again contacted OP No.3 for correction of water bill but nothing was done and the OP No.3 again issued a bill for Rs.4600/- for the period from 15.9.2007 to 15.11.2007 showing arrears of Rs.3344/-. The complainant visited the office of OP No.3 about excess billing and he moved an application about the major fault in the installed meter and for detection of water leakage. In response to which, OP No.3 replaced the water pipe on 23.11.2007 and assured the complainant for correction of the water bills but OP No.3 issued bill dated 2.2.2008 for Rs.4756/- for the period from 15.11.2007 to 15.1.2008 showing arrears of Rs.4726/-. The complainant moved an application dated 4.1.2008 to OP No.3 for correction of water bills but the OP No.3 was informed that the matter may be taken with OP No.2 i.e. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. As such, complainant contacted OP No.2 for correction of water bills but to no avail. Rather, he was issued further water bills of Rs.4824/- for the period from 15.1.2008 to 15.3.2008 showing arrears of Rs.4759/- and then issued a bill for Rs.4998/- for the period from 15.3.2008 to 15.5.2008. It was averred that OP No.3 did not correct the water bills and the actual water bills received by him after the repair done on 23.11.2007 were Rs.30/- & Rs.65/- only. The above said act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service, which caused the complainant great mental tension, agony and physical harassment. Hence, this complaint.

3. Short reply was filed by OP No.1 in which it has been stated that the application dated 13.11.2007 moved by complainant was duly attended but no leakage was found. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. Joint reply was filed by OPs No.2 & 3 in which it was submitted that the water bills were issued to the complainant as per the water consumption of the complainant and actual meter reading. On the request of complainant, the meter was checked and the outlet & inlet part of the meter was found working properly. It was also submitted that the leakage problem did not relate to answering OP and the water pipe, if any, must have been replaced by the maintenance wing of OP No.1 and not by them. It is further submitted that underground leakage was after installation of meter connection, however, the bills have rightly been issued as per the meter readings. Other allegations in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

6. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to overhaul the account of the complainant, to correct the bills and to charge him on average basis taking the average consumption of 12 months after the problem of leakage and fast running of meter. It was further directed that the excess amount, if any, received by the OPs shall be adjusted in the future bills and an intimation about the overhauling of the account shall be issued to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and Rs.500/- as costs of litigation.

7. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the OPs No.2 and 3. Sh.Sanjeev Ghai, Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellants, Sh.Harbans Singh, respondent No.1 has appeared in person and Ms.Ritu Jain, Assistant District Attorney has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. The main point for consideration before us is whether there is negligence on the part of OP No.3 by not maintaining the Government Accommodation provided to the complainant.

8. The contents of paras No.1 and 2 in the appeal have already been written in the complaint and in the reply, so there is no need to reiterate it again. It is further submitted by the appellants that the impugned order passed by the District Forum may be set aside on the ground that the house where the complainant is residing a Government house which belongs to the Chandigarh Administration and the maintenance of the Government houses is only within the domain of Chandigarh Administration whereas Municipal Corporation is only performing the function of water supply to the houses and raising bills for water charges. Therefore the functions of the Municipal Corporation for supply of water are limited upto the water meter installed in the premises and the appellants could not be held responsible for any underground water leakage within the said house which belongs to the Chandigarh Administration and the maintenance of which is the duty of the Chandigarh Administration only. It is further submitted by the appellants that the District Forum while passing the order has not appreciated the fact that the said complaint slip is of the maintenance booth of the office of respondent No.2, which looks after the work of maintenance of the Government Houses. It is submitted that G.I.Pipe was repaired by the office of respondent No.2 on 23.11.2007 and as such there was no fault on the part of appellants. It is further submitted by the appellants that if the meter was working properly, there was no deficiency in service on the part of appellants as the bills were issued by the appellants as per the actual meter reading and consumption recorded by the water meter. It is submitted that appellants cannot be held responsible for any underground water leakage within the house of the complainant as the appellants are responsible only upto the water supply line connected to the meter and for any fault beyond the meter within the premises it is the responsibility of either the owner or the occupier of the house and in the instant case it was the responsibility of the Chandigarh Administration to execute the maintenance work of the Government house in question. It is submitted that once the meter was working properly and bills were issued as per actual consumption then the District Forum could not be said that the account may be overhauled by taking average consumption of 12 months after the problem of leakage was attended to. It is further prayed that in view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua the appellants.

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, respondent No.1, Assistant District Attorney for respondent No.2 and perused the record, we have come to the conclusion that appellant No.1/OP No.2 i.e. Municipal Corporation rightly perform its duty by installing water meter which is working accurately. This meter in question has already been checked and declared ‘OK’ by the appropriate authority. The appellant No.1/OP No.2 has issued the correct bills to the complainant according to the actual consumption of the water. As alleged by appellant No.1/OP No.2 that they have performed their duty by issuing the correct bills according to the actual consumption of water, as regards to the maintenance they are not liable. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of appellant No.1/OP No.2 i.e. Municipal Corporation.

10. As regards to the appellant No.2/OP No.3 i.e. Public Health, it is the duty of the Public Health to maintain the Government Houses, as in this particular house, there was a leakage of water in G.I. Pipes due to which the complainant has to suffer a lot inspite of his many oral and written complaints. The appellant No.2/OP No.3 failed to replace the defective pipes in time due to which the complainant has to pay an extra amount of bills for the excess water due to the leakage, which he has never consumed.

11. According to us, it is not justified that due to the wrong of appellant No.2/OP No.3 i.e. Public Health by not replacing the defective pipes, complainant should be held liable to make the payment of the excess billing due to the leakage of water. The complainant is liable only to pay the amount of the bill to the extent that how much water actually consumed by the complainant. For this purpose, we do agree with the direction given by the District Forum that the Municipal Corporation should charge on the average basis taking average consumption of 12 months after the replacement of the pipes. In our view, the appellant No.1/OP No.2 i.e. Municipal Corporation has rightly issued the bill according to the consumption. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of appellant No.1/OP No.2 i.e. Municipal Corporation. As regard to the appellant No.2/OP No.3 i.e. Public Health is at a fault by not replacing the defective pipes in time due to which the complainant has to suffer a lot and to pay for the extra amount. In our view, the appellant No.2/OP No.3 is deficient in service qua the respondent No.1/complainant and is liable to pay rest of the amount of the bill, which is due against the meter installed at the premises of the complainant to the Municipal Corporation. With these observations as mentioned above, we do modify the order passed by the District Forum to the extent which is directed as under:-

1. We direct the appellant No.1/OP No.2 i.e. Municipal Corporation to overhaul the account of the complainant, to correct the bills and to charge him on average basis taking the average consumption of 12 months after the problem of leakage removed. It is further directed that the excess amount, if any, received by the OPs shall be adjusted in the future bills and an intimation about the overhauling of the account shall be issued to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order as ordered by the District Forum.

2. We further direct the appellant No.2/OP No.3 i.e. Public Health to pay rest of the amount of the bill which is due against this water meter which is installed at the premises of the complainant and further directed the appellant No.2/OP No.3 i.e. Public Health to pay Rs.500/- as costs of litigation to the complainant already awarded by the District Forum.

12. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is disposed of with the directions mentioned above.

13. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Complaint Case No : 830 of 2009

Date of Institution : 10.06.2009

Date of Decision : 20.01.2010

Navneet Sama son of Sh.Virat Kumar Sama, R/o House NO.1115, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh.
….…Complainant

V E R S U S

Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, through its Secretary, Sector 17, Municipal Corporation Office, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Party
CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER



Argued by: None for complainant.

Sh.Vivek Arora, Adv. for OP-Municipal Corp.

PER SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

The complainant on 12.3.2009 parked his Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Regd. No.PB.10-BA-4777 in the paid parking of OP in front of SCO No.22-23, Sector 9, Chandigarh against receipt Ann.C-1 but when the came back to get his motorcycle at about 10.45 P.M., he did not find it there. The matter was reported to the Police, who lodged FIR No.32, dated 13.3.2009 under Section 379 IPC (Ann.C-2). Thereafter complainant visited the OP Office many times to get the value of the lost motor cycle amounting to Rs.40,000/- since it was lost from their paid parking lot, which was duly managed by them, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.



2] OP filed reply stating interalia that the said Paid Parking Area of Sector 9, Chandigarh was being by run Private Security Agency, namely, M/s. Enter Climax Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 8.3.2009 to 31.7.2009. However, parking slips were handed over to the said agency by the OP Corporation for proper management and record. It is also stated that in fact the complainant did not contact the parking attendant at the parking lot at the time of incident nor the parking incharge was contacted, whose telephone number was displayed on the board. It is further stated that the complainant did not approach the OP Corporation even on the next date of incident. It is asserted that the duty of the attendants at parking lot remains for 12 hours starting from 9.00 A.M. till 9.00 P.M. and since the complainant himself came back at around 10.45 P.M. on the date of incident, therefore, the OP Corporation was not at all responsible for any deficiency in service as much as the complainant had not even contacted the Incharge of said parking lot. Denying all other allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the OP and have perused the record.

5] The Learned Counsel for the OP has argued that the paid parking in Sector 9, Chandigarh was run by a Private Security Agency M/s Enter Climax Pvt. Ltd, House no. 249 sector 9-C, Chandigarh by deploying its own parking attendants and not by the OP. It is argued that the complaint should have been filed by the complainant against the said Agency and that the OP is not liable for the theft/loss of the vehicle. We do not find any merit in this argument. The parking slip Annexure C-1 is that of the OP. Their contention that parking slips were handed over by the OP to the said parking Agency shows that infact the parking lot is managed by the OP, otherwise the parking slips would have been issued by the contractor, if the OP had no control over the parking lot. Annexure C-1 is a strong circumstance to suggest that the said parking lot was managed by the OP and not by any such Agency.

6] In case the parking lot was leased to M/s Enter Climax Pvt. Ltd, the OP would be having necessary documents therefore. The OP however has not placed on file any lease deed or the agreement entered into between the OP and the said Agency which also suggest that the parking lot had not been leased to the said Agency.

7] It is also argued by the OP that the attendants at the parking lot used to be on duty from 9.00 a.m to 9.00 p.m. According to the Learned Counsel if the complainant came back at 10.45 p.m to collect his vehicle, it was his fault in not taking the delivery of the vehicle before 9.00 p.m and therefore if any theft takes place it would be the responsibility of the complainant and not of the OP. Again we do not find any merit in this argument. It is mentioned on the parking slip Annexure C-1 that the parking time was 8.00 a.m to 12.00 p.m midnight. It is admitted that this slip was issued by the OP, whether to the Agency named by them or by the attendants of the OP directly to the complainant. The contention of the OP that the parking time was only upto 9.00 p.m and that the complainant should have collected the vehicle before that time therefore cannot be accepted as correct. Otherwise also, the mere mentioning of this time would not bind the complainant. The slip is not signed by the complainant and this unilateral term to evade its liability cannot be applied against the complainant. Taking for example if the OP had mentioned on the parking slip that they would be responsible for theft or damage only for 15 mts or 1 hour from the time of parking, that would not absolve them from their liability against theft or damage to the vehicle.

8] The contention of the OP that the attendants are on 12 hours duty from 9.00 a.m to 9.00 p.m also is no help to the OP. After collecting the parking charges when the vehicle is parked in the parking lot, it is the duty of the OP to protect the vehicle from theft and damage. It appears after collecting the parking charges, the OPs leave the vehicles at the mercy of thieves, who can commit the theft of the belongings or the entire vehicle from the parking lot for which the OP claims that they are not liable. This position cannot be legally sustained. If certain vehicles have not been taken back by the owners till 9.00 p.m, the OPs should have either put another attendant on duty after 9.00 p.m or a provision should have been made to handover the remaining vehicles to some responsible person to take care of the same, which has not been done in the present case, for which the OP can be held to be deficient in rendering proper service.

9] Due to the theft of the vehicle, the complainant has been harassed. He has to remain without a vehicle till he gets compensation therefor. Even if the vehicle was insured and the complainant may be getting some compensation from the insurance company for the loss of his vehicle. However the OP is liable to compensate the complainant for deficiency in service resulting in the mental and physical harassment to the complainant.

10] In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation alongwith Rs.1100/- as costs of litigation. The entire amount is to be paid within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this orer failing which they would be liable to pay penal interest @ 12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 10.06.2009, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Dear Sir/Madam

This is to bring in your kind notice that Paid Parking contractor/workers of Rock garden are looting tourists and visitors in day light. They have designed the parking slip in such a manner high lightening Rs 10/- (incase of the lost of the parking token). No visitor come to know about the actual parking fee i.e Rs 5/- which is no where mentioned on the slip and they are charing Rs 10/- instead of Rs 5/- which is the actual parking fees. Kindly take an apropriate action against the culprits.

Regards
Saurabh Gupta
Resident, Chandigarh

respected sir,
through this email i want to tell u that there r several stray dogs wandering around the flats.they barks on people and few persons bitten by them.they spreads the litter from the dustbeens.all r scaring.i request u to do something of these dogs.
we all will very tahnkful to u.
from all residents of sec 45a,chandigarh.

Some roads have no street light