ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the Opposite Parties (herein referred in short as O.Ps) alleging the deficiency in service in not providing the rebate allowed to other users of drinking water supplied by OPs and direct OPs to pay compensation to pay Rs.30,000/- for causing mental torture, agony and strain, for Rs.10,000/- towards cost of correspondence and for Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit under the circumstance.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

The complainant is the owner of the house situated in William town, Bangalore. He is having separate water connection to his house. Water being supplied by OP and used to send bill every month since 1982 and he has been paying the same, regularly excepting the bills raised by the OP from May/June 2020, till January 2021, wherein OP has demanded to pay arrears at the rate of 148/- pm., from May 2017 to January 2021.  There are no over dues to be paid by him in respect of the bills sent by the OP.  on 21.05.2020 OP3 sent a letter bearing No.BWSSB Central C-3/1/133/202 stating that the entire building and houses situated in the area Williams town has been categorized as slum area i.e., whereas the complainant house No.56 situated in the same place do not fall in the slum area. There are about 218 houses in the said area. Earlier the original name of the said area was Bangalore City Corporation area allotted to its employees. The same was considered as slum area and the Government of Karnataka allowed a rebate of Rs.100/- to Rs.148/- pm., to the residents of the said area who uses water supplied by the OP.  OP has claimed to recover Rs.4,352/-  @ 148/- pm which was allowed as rebate from May 2017 to January 2021 and also claimed interest on the said amount, which he is not liable to pay.  

3.      The houses in the said area have been built with common walls on all the four sides during the year 1930-40.  One house cannot be isolated and deny the same to him. The same has to be treated with all other houses as slum area house and grant him the rebate. He wrote a letter to the Chief Executive Engineer, BWSSB, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore and the same was delivered, inspite of it no reply was issued.  He has also produced the water bill in respect of house No.1 House NO.55 and 57 for July –august 2020 wherein the government has allowed rebate of Rs.148/-, 134/- and Rs.100/-. The said houses are adjacent to his house. Reminders were also issued to this effect. OP has non responsive to the said letter.

4.      The residents of the houses in Williams town facing to the third main, first cross have let the ground floor of the houses for occupation of shops and establishments like rice, general store, provision store, medical store, bakery, mutton shop, internet cafes. Inspite of they becoming commercial area, OP has not at all taken into consideration and has not at all levied commercial rate for the water supplied to it and thereby loosing substantial revenue to government and it is still allowing rebate of Rs.148/- to the inmates of the said houses. The said Williams town houses and the residents are not at all SCs and STs and they are not slum dwellers. The said community people were allotted sites/houses and they sold the same for a better price to other persons and the purchasers have constructed high rise luxury houses/buildings and let it for commercial purpose.  Instead of levying full water rate to all, OP decided to single out the complainant only in levying full water rate without extending the rebate whereas it has extended the same to all the other owners and occupants and other building in William town, which is contrary to the equality before the constitution and hence there is discrimination a deficiency in service and prayed the commission to allow the complaint.

5.      Upon the service of notice, OP1, 2 and 3 appeared before the Commission and filed the version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and there is no allegation of defective service.  Further the dispute relates to the slum rebate.  Complainant is not entitling for any slum rebate and the same was clarified from the Karnataka slum development board and the complainant has also admitted the same.

6.      The house of the complainant bearing Nol.56 at Williams town, do not come under slum jurisdiction. As per the clarification from the Karnataka slum development board regarding the slum areas in Pulakeshi Nagar. The said board has replied on 24.09.2020 that the area in Williams town do not come under slum jurisdiction. In view of the same, complainant himself visited the office to seek clarification regarding the water bill issued to him.  At that time OP found that the water connection provided to the house of the complainant was included in the slum category and the same was rectified. Denying all the allegations made in the complaint against it, further contended that OP has no liability to pay the compensation to the complainant as claimed in the complaint as there is no deficiency in service on its part and it has acted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the water supply connection and prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.

7.      In order to prove the case, both parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

8.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:            In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:            Partly in the affirmative.

                                For the following.

REASONS

9.     POINT No.1:-

   Perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by respective parties.  It is not in dispute that the complainant is the owner of house NO.56 and has been using the water being supplied by the OP for domestic purpose with consumer No.E300165060 with RR No.11633.  as per the bill produced there is a mention that too in Ex.P4 as water charges, meter charges, sanitary charges SC for bore well and other charges, wherein 148 has been deducted, which has been again rounded up to 210/- and the complainant was asked to pay Rs.5,023/-. The same has been repeated in the other receipt produced. The correspondences have been admitted by the parties. Several letters have been also exchanged between the parties.  

10.   According to OPs, the Williams towns do not find a place in the letter issued by the Slum Board, declaring the area as slum.  In Ex.P23, produced by the complainant there is no mention of the Williams town in the said area. The Executive Engineer in C21 and 22 has informed the complainant that the rebate of 148 was given to the residents of the slum area wherein the persons belonging to SC and ST for their living and by mistake, with the said rebate, the bill was raised to the complainant for the use of the water by him and as the said house do not fall in the slum area complainant is not entitle for rebate and requested him to pay the amount which was given in rebate to the extent of Rs.4,352/- and also informed that the limit of area within the jurisdiction of the Pulakeshi Nagar, assembly constituency, has been provided by the slum clearance board, declaring what are all the areas that are the slum to which this facility is extended. 

11.   It is to be noted here that the complainant has also produced receipt for house No.1, 55 and 57 which are adjacent to his house. They have been provided with the rebate of Rs.148/- from the monthly bill whereas this complainant has been levied with higher amount of water bill, for which he is agitating before this commission.  

12.   When the neighboring houses are treated for rebate, what made the OP to deny the rebate to the complainant has not been explained. It is also to be seen here that the entire residential area and the house situated therein in Williams town, do not form part of the slum.  No denial has been made by the OP that the said area has been developed and the buildings have been put to use for commercial purpose. When such being the case, those residents are not entitle for rebate of Rs.148/- or for that matter any amount for the supply of the water by the OP.

13.   OP has to treat all the consumers equally. It cannot be partial to somebody. In this case the complainant has been targeted by OP in not providing him the rebate. If at all as claimed by the OP that the houses/buildings situated in Williams town do not form the slum and the residents are not entitle for any of the relief, then it has to recover the money from all the inmates who are using the water facility supplied by OP and make a uniform bill without allowing any rebate. Till then, denying the rebate to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and also making discrimination between the residents of the same area. Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and direct OPs to provide rebate of Rs.148/- from May 2017 till they decide to levy the exact water rates to all the inmates of the building/house of the Williams town without providing any rebate as it is no more a slum area. Hence in this direction the authorities of the OP to take a decision of levying the normal rate to all the inmates of the building/houses of the Williams town within three months and recover the arrears without providing any rebate, since it is no more a slum area and further OPs are directed to file a action taken report before this forum in this regard.  

14.   In view of our answers to Point NO.1 in the affirmative, OPs are liable to either refund the amount which the complainant has paid regarding the extra amount demanded by the OPs in their bills from May 2017 to January 2020(if at all paid by the complainant) and if not paid, not to insist for the same and to allow Rs.148/- p.m., as regular rebate to the complainant also, till the OPs treat the area of Williams town as non slum area and recover the amount in the normal course for the persons to who water being supplied. Further act of OP in not taking action to set right the non allowing of the rebate to the complainant made the complainant to suffer both mentally, physically and financially for which we direct OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- damages and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses and answer point No.2 partly in the affirmative and pass the following;

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part with cost.
2. OP is directed to refund the amount which the complainant has paid regarding the extra amount demanded by the OPs in their bills from May 2017 to January 2020(if at all paid by the complainant) and if not paid, not to insist for the same and to allow Rs.148/- p.m., as regular rebate to the complainant also, till the OPs treat the area of Williams town as non slum area and recover the amount in the normal course for the persons water being supplied.
3. OPPOSITE PARTY is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as damages and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
4. OP is further directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same will be weeded out/destroyed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 04^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022)

MEMBER                 MEMBER                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: BWSSB water bills June 2020 to Jan. 2021

Ex P2: Letter from OP dated 21.05.2020

Ex P3: Reply to OP letter dated 04.07.2020

Ex P4: Postal track record

Ex P5: Water bill of neighbor house(4 Nos.)

Ex P6: Letter written by me to BWSSB dtd 14.09.2020

Ex P7: Acknowledgement

Ex P8: Letter written by me to BWSSB dtd 16.10.2020

Ex P9: Postal acknowledgement

Ex P10: Letter written by me to BWSSB dated 02.12.2020

Ex P11: Letter written by BWSSB dated 24.11.2020

Ex P12: Letter dated 24.09.2020 written by Karnataka Slum Area development board to BWSSB

Ex P13: Water bills for the month of April 2021 (4 in Nos.)

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri.HARINATH R., Asst. Executive Engineer, BWSSB,

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the letter dated 24.11.2020, 24.09.2020 along with details of the slum area of No.4 sub division.

MEMBER                 MEMBER                       PRESIDENT

HAV*