Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1/2015

MS K.R CHITRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

D.J.B - Opp.Party(s)

24 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO.  01/15

 

Ms. K.R. Chitra

D/o Late Shri K. Raman

R/o A-101, Sector-19,

Noida – 201 301                                                          ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Delhi Jal Board

Mayur Vihar Phase – II

Delhi

Service through Executive Engineer (East)-I

 

2. Delhi Jal Board

(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

HQ: Varunalaya Phase-II, Karol Bagh

New Delhi – 110 005

Service through Authorized Person                                  …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 01.01.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 24.10.2017

Judgment Passed on: 24.10.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Ms. K.R. Chitra against Delhi Jal Board (OPs), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant made an application for water connection with Delhi Jal Board and deposited a sum of   Rs. 4,796/- on 15.05.2014 vide receipt no. 580619130334 towards new water connection at her house no. 203, Block C-II, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi – 110 096.  She has stated that on receiving the amount, Delhi Jal Board was under duty bound to give connection.  She made requests to OP who refused to give water connection, which forced the complainant to have a private plumber/contractor of OP to give the connection for which she engaged one Mr. Surajpal on 23.05.2014 who is stated to be an authorized plumber of OP.  She spent an amount of Rs. 9,798/- towards labour charges, water meter charges, CPVC water pipes and other material for getting the water connection.  When plumber Mr. Surajpal was unsuccessful, she engaged another plumber viz. Mr. Brijesh who also failed to do so.  He was paid an amount of Rs. 3,200/-.  She suffered lot of physical and mental harassment and her precious time i.e. on 23.05.2014 and 22.06.2014.  She informed the OP that there was no water supply to her house even after several attempts by various plumbers. 

          She has further stated that she fell ill and suffered from sunstroke and viral fever for which she has to spend an amount of  Rs. 2,300/- on her treatment.  She could not get a single drop of water for which she served a legal notice of dated 09.07.2014.  Thus, she has claimed an amount of Rs. 20,094/-, the bifurcation of which is as follows:-

S.No.	Particulars	Amount  (Rupees)
1.	Sum deposited on 15.05.2014	4,796.00
2.	Cost of water meter, sanitary material and labour charges for engaging Mr. Surajpal (plumber)	9,798.00
3.	Expenses incurred in engaging Mr. Brijesh (plumber)	3,200.00
4.	Expenses incurred for personal visits reminders and medical treatment	2,300.00
	Total	20,094.00

 

          This claim has been sought as she has stated that as government agency, OP were supposed to give water supply to the complainant on receipt of requisite fee and compliance of all formalities which the complainant have done to the entire satisfaction of OP.  Since they have failed to do so, they were liable to compensate the complainant for all the expenses occurred and for her mental and physical harassment.  Thus, she has claimed an amount of Rs. 20,094/- with interest.

3.       In the WS filed on behalf of Delhi Jal Board (OPs), they have stated that the complainant had deposited amount for meter connection by her free consent, but she had not taken any further approval for the supply of water connection and Delhi Jal Board had never forced the complainant to engage a private plumber/contractor.  She had never made any proper request for water connection.  It has been stated that Mr. Surajpal was not an authorized plumber as they had not given any license number.  They have also denied in respect of plumber Mr. Brijesh.  No record has been enclosed with the complaint in respect of having no water.  They have denied any liability for compensation.

4.       The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein she has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted her pleas.

5.         In support of its complaint, complainant have examined herself.  She has deposed on affidavit and have narrated the facts stated in the complaint.  She has got exhibited documents such as copy of receipt dated 15.05.2014 (Ex.CW-1/1) and copy of notice (Ex.CW-1/2).   

          OP have examined Shri Sunil Kumar, ZRO (East), who have also deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of latest water bill (Ex.R-1) and inspection report (Ex.R-2). 

6.       We have heard the complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for OPs and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of OPs that the complainant have not completed the formalities which were required for water connection.  They have further submitted that plumber Mr. Surajpal was not an authorized plumber. 

          On the other hand, complainant have stated that she has completed all the formalities and by depositing the amount for water connection, she was entitled for the water.  She has further stated that both Mr. Surajpal and Mr. Brijesh, the plumbers were authorized to have the water connection.

          To appreciate the arguments of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OPs, the evidence on record is to be perused.  If a look is made to the testimony of the complainant, she has placed on record copy of receipt showing an amount of Rs. 4,796/- paid for water connection (Ex.CW-1/1).  Except this document, she has not placed anything on record in respect of having spend an amount of            Rs. 20,094/-.

          In the testimony of Shri Sunil Kumar, ZRO (East) of OPs, he has placed on record the latest water bill (Ex.R-1) for the period from 22.03.2017 to 25.05.2017 showing the consumption as zero.  His testimony also shows that complainant have deposited for meter connection, but she has not taken any further approval for the supply of water connection. 

          From the analysis of the testimony of complainant as well as Shri Sunil Kumar, it comes out that complainant have simply applied for water connection, but she has not taken any steps for supply of water.  No document has been placed on record by the complainant except the receipt for meter connection.  Not only that, she has not placed any document to show that both the plumbers Mr. Surajpal and Mr. Brijesh were authorized plumbers of Delhi Jal Board.  Merely, by applying for water connection without taking further approval for water supply, no case of the complainant for any deficiency on the part of OPs is made out.  When no case of deficiency in service is made out, her complaint for refund as well as compensation cannot be accepted.

          In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complaint has no merit and the same deserves its dismissal.  Hence, her complaint is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.    

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                             (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                                   President