Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President—In this complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,15,024/- from the opposite parties, opposite party No. 1 Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) and opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 the builders.

2. The complainant is an Association i.e., Cunningham Apartment Owners’ Association. The building of the complainant has got 16 residential apartments. The said Association came to be registered on 19.8.91. It is the further case of the complainant that the construction of the apartment was completed in the year 1986. Subsequently occupation certificate was received by the City Corporation. Each of the apartment was separately assessed to the property tax since 1.10.86. It is the grievance of the complainant that from 1.10.86 till the Association came to be registered on 19.8.91 it was the duty of the builders to manage the apartments and to secure the billing of water supply at domestic rates which the builders failed to do. The complainant’s Association as soon as it was registered took over the management of the apartments and got converted the billing of water supply from non-domestic rates to domestic rates. The builders by their negligence made the apartment-holders to pay the water supply charges at non-domestic rates and did not get it converted to domestic rates which they were expected to do under the provisions of the Act. As a result the complainant made huge excess payment to opposite party No. 1. The complainant sought refund of the said excess payment made with interest thereon from the opposite parties.

3. During the course of argument the complainant sought this refund of the money only from the builders,

4. Opposite Party No. 1 filed its version and averred that as soon as an application was received for conversion from non-domestic to domestic rates, it was done by it and so there was no question of any negligence on its part.

5. Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 the builders, remained absent.

6. During enquiry complainant filed the affidavit in evidence and got Exts. C. 1 to C. 7 marked in evidence. Opposite Party No. 1 filed the affidavit of its Secretary in evidence.

7. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the material on record.

8. In this complaints the complainant has sought refund of the excess amount paid for water supply by it.

9. Having regard to this relief sought for by the complainant, we are constrained to hold that the complaint does not raise a consumer dispute.

10. The National Commission considered this aspect of the matter is Skipper Bhawan v. M/s. Skipper Sales (Pvt.) Ltd, reported in I (1995) CPJ 210 (NC) wherein it was held as under :

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(o) — a person who renders service and levies excess charges as consideration cannot be said to have committed deficiency in service.”

11. The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the builders had acted in violation of Clauses 6 and 11 of the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972. Clause 6 reads as under :

“6. Responsibility for payment of outstanding till property is transferred.—

A promoter shall, while he is in possession and where he collects from persons who have taken over flats or are to take over flats sums for the payment of outstandings even thereafter, pay all outgoings (including ground rent, Municipal or other local taxes, taxes on income, water charges, electricity charges, revenue assessment, interest on any mortgage or other encumbrances, if any), until he transfers the property to the persons taking over the flats, or to the organisation of any such persons.” ‘

12. It details the responsibilities of the promoter while he is in possession and manages the apartments. It is the case of the complainant that since 1987 they are in occupation and all the flat