Co-op housing - billing members for conributions
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 19 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
In a society where flats are of different sizes:
1.Water:There is a bye law which says that water should be charged on the basis of number and size of water inlets. Whereas the semi-govt public utility, i.e. the Municipality providing the water to the Society bills the society a flat per flat according its rules. There is a divergence between the two. Does the bye law prevail over the Municipality Rule or vice versa ?
2. Am I right to believe that in-house sewage treatment plant expenses are common expenses to be shared equally by all flats and not on any other basis?
Sankaranarayanan
(Expert) 19 October 2011
yes i agreed your questions. but these thing are been questioned and given agitation before create the bylaw.
if anything against the bylaw then it should be answerable
ajay sethi
(Expert) 19 October 2011
cooperative societies have to follow the model bye laws laid down by the state goverment . under the mode bye laws it is provided that water charges depend upon number of inlets in each flat .
societies raise bill on basis of the procedure laid down for recovery of maintenance charges .
as far as sewage treatment plant expenses are concerned i believe it should be shared equally by all members .
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 21 October 2011
Co-op housing-Billing members for contributions:
1. I thank Mr Ajay Sethi for the answer on expense sharing of expenses on sewage treatment plant.
2.Water: I do agree that Bye Laws have to be followed in toto. Interesting points arise:
i)By using bye laws, if a larger flat has to pay more than what "the water authority" charges to the Society, will it not tantamount to trading in municipal water (tax) from a public utility provider, and profiteering from members of water tax.
ii)Will it also not mean that there is discrimination between members and members, which is what the public authority was trying to avoid
iii) How tenable is the argument 'bigger the flat-more the occupants-more water used". Does the argument not go against the principle of natural justice and fair play?
iv) If at all the bye laws override the public utility service provider's Rule/method, why should the larger flats pay more for common water used for cars, tank cleaning, watering for garden and plants, toilets in club house, workers toilet, water for cleaning all cmoomon areas, fire fighting demonstrations etc etc.
Kindly elulicidate further. Thanks
ajay sethi
(Expert) 21 October 2011
it is not the size of flat but number of inlets in flat which is the criteria . by l;aws have to be followed by society . it is binding .
as far as cleaning of cars , wateringof garden is concerned you use boring water for said purpose . BMc supplies you potable water for drinking not washing of cars . similarly for servant toilets etc in society boring water is to be used .
if your society has not done so insist that boring be done in your society . you save on water bills and ther is harmony in society .
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 22 October 2011
Thank you Ajay for your response.
Let me word my doubts differently.
By following Bye Law which is binding,a larger flat, say A which has more NUMBER of water INLETS (with SAME SIZE of INLETS)is charged say Rs.180/- and a smaller flat say B, is charged Rs.140/-. CHS apportions (Rs.160 x 2 =) Rs.360/- charged by Municipality on 2 flats, as above. Let us forget the bore well part, car washing et al.
Q. Is charging Rs.180/- to flat A legally justifiable? NOTE: Municipality is a public authority
Q. The CHS makes a profit of Rs.20/- from a member(Flat A) and subsidizes Flat B by Rs.20/-. Is profiteering from a member(flat A)legally allowed?. Let us not worry about the subsidy to Flat B.
Please review.
By Anonymous.
