Delhi

West Delhi

CC/12/79

M/s Sunrise Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Executive Officer Delhi Jal Board Jal Board - Opp.Party(s)

11 Oct 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                     Date of institution:06.02.2012

Complaint Case. No. 79 /2012                                      Date of order: 11.10.2017

IN  MATTER OF

M/s Sunrise Cooperative  Group Housing Society Ltd.  Plot No. 14, D Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-11018.

                                                                                                                         Complainant

VERSUS

 

Chief    Executive Officer  Delhi Jal Board Jal Board  Varunalaya  Karol Bagh, New Delhi.          

 

                                                                                                            Opposite Party No. 1

                                              

The  Zonal  Revenue  Officer(Water),  West –III,  Paschim Vihar,  New Delhi.

 

Opposite Party No. 2

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

M/s Sunrise Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. named above herein the complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act  against Chief Executive Officer  Delhi Jal Board and another herein after referred  as the opposite parties for directions to the opposite parties to recalculate water supply charges rate for one year of the complainant  at   prescribed   domestic  water   supply   charges    rates    w.e.f.   

April  2009,  refund  excess amount  claimed  and recovery of service charges  of  Rs. 76,623/-   for the period April 2009 to December 2011  and restrain claiming service  charges for   rendering  service of water supply of water  through one tap per flat charges of Rs.  55  /-  per month  claimed  from January  2011 on ward  with interest @ 12% p.a. and pay legal expenses of Rs. 65,000/- and miscellaneous expenses  Rs. 7,662/- .

The brief relevant facts as stated are that  Delhi Development Authority  vide letter No. F.AE 157 /AE IV.WD-2 DDA/2000/265 dated  30.09.2000 and letter of even number dated 08.06.2001  permitted water connection  of the complainant on following terms and conditions:-

1. Bulk  water  meter shall be installed  by the Society  near the tank and at a place  convenient  for inspection and taking periodical readings.
2. The individual water connection and water supply services to the flats owners will be given by the Society through underground reservoirs and  boosting arrangement  and the same  will not be taken  over by the Department.
3. The supply services are to be maintained by the Society.  If there is  any Leakage, the society has  to make arrangements to attend the same  Priority.  In case of not attending  the leakage, water supply can be closed.
4. Any  damage to the  water  lines, electrical lines, or any other services will be repaired at the Society’s  risk and cost.  Any other deficiency charges, if raised the Delhi Jal Board or MCD will be  borne by the Society.

That sewerage and water supply services for group housing societies were handed over  to Delhi Jal Board  w.e.f. 23.06.2001  and 20.08.2001 .

That the  complainant was provided only one tap with initial water supply  by the Delhi Jal Board for storing water in tank of the complainant  for two or three days.  Thereafter the stored water is being boosted by the complainant society to respective flats by booster pump of the society.  The water charges in the bills include rates of kiloliters   of water supply from one tap to tank mentioned in the water bill.  But the service charges claimed on adhoc rate basis are  quiet excessive  from the prescribed  service rates without any service.  Therefore, the complainant sent complaint to the opposite parties for working out wrong service charges and refund excess amount of water charged from the society.  But the opposite parties  again sent water charges bill on inflated  water charges.  President  and Honorary Secretary of   the  complainant again met the opposite parties and Grievances  Cell of the Chief Minister, Delhi. Who assured to take suitable action on levy of water charges on the  basis of kiloliters water consumption supply rates only.  But the opposite parties did not  reduce excess water   supply charges and claimed  Rs.  55/- per flat charges from January  2011 without any service.

That water bills of the complainant  for the period  from 15.06.2009 to 21.05.2011  and  June to December 2011 are  exorbitant.  The complainant several times asked the opposite parties  to correct the bills and refund the excessive amount.   But to no  effect.  Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to recalculate water supply charges rate for one year of the complainant at   prescribed   domestic  water   supply   charges    rates    w.e.f.  April  2009,  refund  excess amount  claimed  and recovery of service charges  of  Rs. 76,623/-   for the period April 2009 to December 2011  and restrain claiming service  charges for   rendering  service of water supply of water  through one tap per flat charges of Rs.  55  /-  per month  claimed  from January  2011 on ward  with interest @ 12% p.a. and pay legal expenses of Rs. 65,000/- and miscellaneous expenses  Rs. 7,662/- .

After notice  the opposite parties  appeared and   filed reply contesting the complaint on the grounds that water supply  by  the  Delhi Jal Board is stored in Tank  of the society  and is being  boosted by the society to  flats by booster pump of the society.  The water charges bills are issued as per tariff  of Delhi Jal Board.  There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  All other allegations of the complaint are also denied by the opposite parties and prayed for dismissal  of the complaint. 

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite parties controverting stand of the opposite parties reiterating its stand and once again prayed for directions.  

When the complainant society was asked to lead evidence they tendered in  evidence  affidavit  of Sh. S.K. Bangia Administrator  of the society  narrating the facts of the complaint.  The complainant also relied upon Annexure -I letter No. AE-IV 157/WD-2/DDA/2000/265 dated  30.09.2000, Annexure-II letter no. F. AE.IVF57/AEIV/WD-2/DDA/341 dated 08.06.2001 with  letter no. F.57 AEIV/WD-2/DDA/340 dated 04.06.2001 , Annexure-III letter no. CGHS/DJB/2002-2011 dated 27.06.2011, Annexure-IV letter no. CMO/PGC(E)/2011/196194  dated 12.09.2011, Annexure-V  reminder  no. SCGHS/DJB/2002-2011 dated 12.09.2011, Annexure-VI water bill dated 23.09.2011, Annexure VII - water bill dated 24.10.2011, Annexure VIII- water bill dated 26.11.2011,  Annexure IX  -water bill dated 30.12.2011 and Annexure –X statement  of bills. 

When the opposite parties were asked to lead evidence they tendered in evidence  affidavit of  Saroj Sharma, ZRO  narrating facts of their  reply. They also relied upon letter dated 03.10.2011.

We have heard  learned counsel for the parties and have perused the complaint, reply, affidavits of the parties  and documents placed on record carefully and thoroughly.

After   having heard and going through the material on the record very carefully and thoroughly  we are of the opinion that the opposite parties  are charging  water  charges  from the complainant at prescribed   domestic  supply charges rates  and charging  service charges  as per the  rules, regulations and instructions framed by competent authority.  The learned counsel for the complainant has failed  to point out  and show  any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service  on the  part of the  opposite parties.  Whereas  the  learned counsel for the  opposite parties  succeeded  to prove  that all charges are levied as per rules regulations, terms and conditions prescribed by the competent authority. The water supply charges,                                rates and service charges are also taken as per rules, regulation and instructions.  Hence there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency  in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Therefore, there is no merit in the complaint.  The same fails  and  is herby dismissed.  

Order pronounced on : 111.10.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

                  

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                               ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                         MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT