ORDER
Date:  27.7.2016

    Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint on 23/7/2014   and
alleged that he has  water connection bearing  No.  K  9304081000 from
OP and has paid all the bills  raised by  OP.   He is getting water
supply in the hours 12.30 AM to 2 AM while his neighbours   are
getting water supply in the evening hours.    He had made complaints
to the OP for the change  in time of the water supply  but no relief
given to the complainant which is  deficiency  in service on the part
of the OP.  The complainant  prayed that OP be directed to supply
water in the evening hours  and claimed compensation and cost of
litigation.


2.      In reply, OP did not deny the facts regarding water connection
and payment of the bills of the OP and denied rest of the allegations
made in the complaint and clarified  that as per topography of the
area water supply in different pockets of Baljeet Nagar is available
in different time  slots.  Area of the complainant is at higher
altitude approximately 45 feet above from Patel Nagar Booster  Pumping
Station , therefore, time slot fixed for complainant was 12.30 AM to
2.00 AM therefore  there is  no deficiency in service on the part of
the OP. Hence complaint be dismissed with cost.
3. The complainant   has filed rejoinder to the reply and explained
that the objections filed by OP are baseless. In support of his
complainant, the complainant has filed his affidavit along with
documents Ex CW-1/A to    Ex CW-1/D. The OP has also filed affidavit
of Mr. Anil Kumar  Executive  Engineer (West II).  Both the parties
filed their written arguments.
4.  We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the
parties and their written and  oral arguments.  In this case points to
be considered  are as under:-
(a) Whether complainant is a consumer?
(b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP ?
( c) Relief?
5. As OP has  not denied the use of water connection  by the
complainant and payment of bills made by the complainant , therefore,
it is evident and proved that complainant is a “consumer”.

6. A perusal of the complaint shows that the names and addresses of
the  neighbours  of the complainant are  not mentioned  in the
complaint.   He had neither stated names and addresses  of the
neighbours in the affidavit nor had stated their names and addresses
in the complaint.  Therefore, it is  difficult to ascertain that
neighbours of the complaint were getting water supply in the  evening
hours.
7. As the complainant has admitted himself that he was  getting water
supply from 12.30 AM to 2.00 AM, the time slot fixed for the supply of
 water in complainant’s area by the OP .   In Metropolitan City
Delhi, complainant is not supposed to claim the water supply  in a
particular time from OP.   It is true that late night supply of water
is causing inconvenience to the complainant  but such inconvenience
cannot be  treated as deficiency in service  on the part of the OP.
8. Hence looking to the above facts and circumstances of this case we
are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part
of the OP and present complaint is liable dismissed accordingly.
Both the parties will bear their own cost.
9.Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of cost as
per law.  File be consigned to record room.

Announced on this ……………..