GURPRIT SINGH DHILLON vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, PUDA

THIS appeal has been filed against order dated 3.9.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-I) in Complaint Case No. 907/98- Sh. Gurprit Singh Dhillon v. Chief Administrator, PUDA, Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA and Estate Officer, PUDA, Mohali.

THE appellant, Sh. Gurprit Singh Dhillon was allotted plot No. 46, Sector 71, SAS Nagar, Mohali. As per a Scheme of PUDA, if the allottee completes required minimum construction on or before 30.6.1998, sewerage and water connections were to be provided to him without any extension fee. THE complainant avers that after completing all the formalities he applied for sewerage connection on 26.61998 but the same was not provided. It is also alleged that an electric pole stood erected in front of the gate of the complainant''s plot and he requested for its removal but no action was taken, hence emerged this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. On behalf of the O.Ps., it was contended that the house of the complainant was inspected by the J.E. concerned on 30.6.1998 and subsequently by a team of one SDO and two XENs on 30.7.1998 and it was found that work regarding water connection and sanitary fittings was yet to be done and hence sewerage connection was not granted. However, a provisional sewerage connection was released on 12.11.1998 during the pendency of the complaint consequent to a third visit by the concerned JE and on finding that the construction was then complete. This connection was granted provisionally and the complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 38,000/- which amount stood as arrears against the complainant. During the pendency of the case, itself as per Zimini order dated 8.1.2001 it is confirmed that the electric pole in question has been removed and sewerage connection has also been given w.e.f. 3.11.2000 but the complainant still wanted to pursue the case.

The District Forum-I having gone with the version of PUDA that minimum required construction for grant of sewerage connection was not complete prior to 30.6.1998 and that temporary sewerage connection was granted on 12.11.1998, when the same was done, held that the grouse of the complainant regarding sewerage connection stood redressed. However, for the delay in removal of the electric pole and consequent inconvenience caused, the complainant was awarded Rs. 2,000/- as compensation. Costs at Rs. 500/- were also awarded to the complainant.

FEELING aggrieved by the order of the District Forum-II, this appeal was filed by Sh. Gurprit Singh. Notices of appeal were sent to the respondents, who put in appearance through their Counsel, Mr. M.S. Dhami, Advocate, while Mr. P.S. Chahal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant. Record of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the documents on record with utmost care. Learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated that one unit of the house was completed before 30.6.1998 and the same was stated in his sworn affidavit whereas no inspection report indicating non-completion of the unit has been filed by the O.Ps. He further submitted that the application for sewerage connection was given to the O.Ps. on 26.6.1998 and hence he was entitled to exemption regarding payment of extension fee as per the scheme of the O.Ps./respondents. The learned Counsel also submitted that the appellant/complainant had been charged sewerage bills from November, 98 to November, 2001 whereas actually no sewerage connection was given to the appellant/respondent till November, 2000.

THE learned Counsel for the O.Ps. submitted that it has been clearly stated in the sworn affidavit of Sh. G.S. Ghuman, Estate Officer, PUDA, Mohali that on 30.6.1998, the house in question was visited by J.E. concerned and subsequently on 30.7.1998 by a team comprising an SDO and 2 XENs and both found that work in the house regarding water connection and sanitary fittings was yet to be done. THE same was completed only in November, 1998 when provisional sewerage connection was granted to the complainant on the condition that he will deposit Rs. 38,000/- of arrears due from him. Since the minimum construction required for exemption of extension fee prior to 30.6.1998 was not done by the appellant complainant, he was not entitled to the same. It was also contended that since sewerage connection though provisional was granted immediately on completion of required construction, there was no deficiency on the part of PUDA in this context. It was also brought out by the learned Counsel for the respondents/O.Ps. that the electric pole was no hindrance to connection of sewerage and since provisional sewerage connection was granted in November, 1998 rentals were charged for the same with effect from that time. A dispassionate analysis of the evidence on record and submissions of the learned Counsel for both the parties and the impugned order brings out clearly that electric pole in front of the house did cause the complainant inconvenience and the District Forum-I has rightly compensated the appellant/complainant for the same. We are clearly of the opinion that nothing more is needed to be done on this issue. As regard provision of sewerage connection, the District Forum-I in its Zimini order dated 5.6.2000 pointed out that the complainant/appellant had not placed on record completion certificate in form ''D'' or an application for the same as required for provision of sewerage connection as per Section 37 of PUDA Act, referred to by the complainant himself. This coupled with averment in sworn affidavit of Sh. G.S. Ghuman aforesaid, that the complainant had not completed minimum preliminary construction by 30.6.1998 makes it clear that the appellant/complainant is not entitled to exemption of extension fee and other related reliefs due to alleged delay in provision of sewerage connections, as demanded by him. We also find from the record of the case that sewerage connection was granted without delay to the appellant/complainant on completion of required construction and its verification by the concerned J.E. Hence, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of PUDA in this regard. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no reasons to interfere with impugned order of District Forum-I. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without any orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.