Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

Both these appeals bearing nos.178/2010 & 484/2010  arises out of same impugned order dated 29/9/2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai in consumer complaint no.31/2005 Abhilasha Railway Employees CHS Ltd. v/s. The Municipal  Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Both the parties are not satisfied with the impugned order and, therefore, they have come up in appeal. Complainant Abhilasha Railway Employees CHS Ltd.(herein after referred as ‘the Society’) has preferred Appeal no.484/2010, while the opponent -The Municipal  Corporation of Greater Mumbai (herein after referred as “Corporation”) has preferred Appeal no.178/2010.

As per impugned order certain directions were given to reissue the bills as per charge applicable to domestic purpose and not to charge with additional penal charges of 2% etc.  Feeling aggrieved thereby, Appeal no.178/2010 is preferred by original O.P.-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (herein after referred as “Corporation”).  Similarly, since entire relief in their favour, as prayed, were not granted e.g. relief to quash the disputed bills dated 24/12/2004, the complainant society has preferred the appeal, supra.

Heard both the sides. Perused the record.

It may be pointed out at the outset that both the parties relied upon their respective pleadings and it appears that no other evidence is adduced by either of the parties since such material is not placed before us.

The dispute is confined to 8 supplementary bills raised on 24/12/2004 for billing retrospectively for the period from 22/3/1994 to 12/4/2001 aggregating to `5,89,953/- (para 16 of the complaint) and which are detailed as under:-

alleging that Corporation erred in charging suddenly by raising these supplementary bills amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Corporation since the said act is arbitrary and without any basis.

The Corporation answered the said allegation of deficiency in service in (para 16 of the complaint) in the written version as under:-

“With reference to Para No.16 of the complaint, the opposite party submits that, as per the Meter reading recorded by the Meter Supplementary Bills were sent to the complainant as per average consumption recorded by the meter sent to the complainant for the period of 22.3.1994 to 12.4.2001.  As per Water Charges Rules for `5,89,953/-which are as per Rule.”

In the written version itself, particularly, statements made in para 22 & 25, it was asserted that the bills were sent on the actual consumption recorded by meter which was found OK and, therefore, billing was proper.  It is not disputed that the bills submitted at the relevant time were paid by respondent/org. complainant (herein after referred as “Society”).  Therefore, in this context the statement with reference to para 16 in the written version, supra, is quite vague and contrary to what has been submitted earlier. There is no evidence adduced on behalf of the Corporation to show that once the bills were sent properly on earlier occasions as per actual meter reading or on some occasions as per RNR status, there is no reason to raise the supplementary bills in question.  The Corporation did not justify their such action and, therefore, it must be presumed that their action to raise the supplementary bills in question is arbitrary and without any basis.  Thus, deficiency in service on the part of Corporation is well established as far as these supplementary bills dated 24/12/2004, supra, is concerned.

          Further, undisputed fact is that water supply to the society, as per request of the society itself was continued and made on humanitarian ground.  Further, the society had not obtained any occupancy certificate. Therefore, considering the rules of water supply and charges, making applicable charge of `7/- per thousand liter cannot be said as arbitrary. Similarly, levy of 2% charges on the defaulted payment or arrears also cannot be faulted with since the same is in conformity with rules and provisions of water supply.

Jurisdiction of the forum below is well guided and forum cannot grant any relief beyond their empowerment as per section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act for brevity).  Since, admittedly, as per rules, in absence of occupancy certificate, charging the rate `7/- supra, is proper, to give any direction to charge the rate on normal domestic basis at `3.50 per kilo litre is a clear instance of jumping beyond its empowerment by the forum and, thus, the directions given accordingly as per the impugned order cannot be supported with.

          Complainant is only entitled to relief in respect of disputed 8 retrospective bills dated 24/12/2004 which was totalling `5,89,953/-.  In view of the discussion held above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

                                      ORDER

1.     Appeal no.178/10 and Appeal no.484/10 are partly allowed.

2.     Impugned order dated 29/9/2009 is set aside.

3.     Complaint is allowed only in respect of prayer clause (a) in the complaint, which is as under  :-

“(a) That the impugned 8 retrospective bills, all dated 24-12-2004 (as set out in the Particulars of Claim), aggregating to `5,89,953/-raised by the opposite party be quashed and set aside”.

4.     All the prayers as per consumer complaint per paragraphs (b) to (d)

      stands rejected.

5.    Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai do pay to the society `2000/- as compensation towards the harassment suffered by the society in view of raising unjustified supplementary bills.

     6.    In the given circumstances both the parties to bear their own costs.

     7.     Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.