Delhi

East Delhi

CC/784/2015

PRITIPAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

05 Feb 2018

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.  784/15

 

Shri Prithipal Singh

R/o 61, Shyam Enclave

Vikas Marg, Delhi – 110 092                                        ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. Delhi Jal Board

Through its Chairman

H.Off.: Varunalaya,

Jhandewalan, New Delhi                                                  …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 07.10.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 05.02.2018

Judgment Passed on: 06.02.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Prithipal Singh against Delhi Jal Board (OP), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that sewer line of the locality got choked causing water logging woes which gave dirty and foul smell.  Due to the blockage of sewer line, the dirty water made the way to the basement of the property of the complainant and damaged the furniture and fixtures, electrical appliances, law books and goods stored in the basement.  Complainant frequently called safai karamcharis to clear the blockage, but the problem persisted. 

          It was stated that sewerage line of colony laid down about 35-40 years ago and required major repair.  The complainant regularly paid his water bills which included sewer charges @ 60%, but he did not get satisfactory service.  The complainant wrote a letter dated 03.03.2015 to Delhi Jal Board regarding Sewerage problem. 

          He also wrote letters and reminders to OP regarding inflated bills of water consumption since 2006 to 2010 in respect of water meter no. 1139959417, installed in the name of the complainant at his residence, but all in vain. 

          It was further stated that complainant’s category of domestic use was arbitrarily changed to commercial.  There was office of the complainant, who was a practicing advocate, but he had a very meager clientage. 

          Complainant sent a legal notice dated 26.08.2015 to rectify and correct the consumption bill of the said water connection, but OP had failed to comply with.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to correct its sewerage system as well as water pipes laid by OP in Shyam Enclave; reimburse the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of damages to the property of the complainant in the basement; to rectify and correct bill in respect of water meter no. 1139959417 as per consumption and according to domestic use for the period from 2206 to 2010; to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-compensation for harassment & mental agony and cost of litigation.

3.       In the WS filed on behalf of Delhi Jal Board (OP), they have stated that they removed blockages in the sewer line, as and when it came to its knowledge and water logging comes under the jurisdiction of East Delhi Municipal Corporation.  It was submitted that as mentioned in the complaint, safai karamchari cleared the blockage of drainage of the complainant and no one except Delhi Jal Board could clean sewer, therefore, it was individual drainage problem and not of sewer line.  Field staff of Delhi Jal Board checked thoroughly and there was no leakage of sewer and water line. 

          It was denied that Delhi Jal Board had raised inflated bills between 2006 to 2010 in respect of water meter no. 1139959417.  Delay of 5 years about the faulty bill was not explained by the complainant.  Other facts have also been denied. 

4.       In support of its complaint, complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit and have narrated the facts stated in the complaint.  He has got exhibited documents such as copy of letter of Executive Engineer, DJB (Ex.CW-1/1), email to DJB regarding gravity of severe problem (Ex.CW-1/2), application to JE (water) regarding commercial category (Ex.CW-1/3), copy of bill K. No. 1346920000, K. No. 1346920000 and K. No. 0376920000 (Ex.CW-1/4 to 1/6), copy of legal notice (Ex.CW-1/7), photographs of sewer and damage in basement (Ex.CW-1/8) and inflated water bill for Rs. 42,707/- (Ex.CW-1/9). 

          OP have examined Shri R.K. Singh, ZRO, who have also deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS. 

6.       We have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. It has been argued on behalf of OP that complainant have not placed any document on record to show that his property was damaged due to the act of OP for which he has claimed damages.  Further, his bills have been corrected for the period from 2006 to 2010.  It has been argued that the complainant have sought action for whole of the colony in a representative capacity which he could not do so. 

          On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant have argued that though the bills have been corrected, but an outstanding amount has been shown.  He has argued that for sewer line, it is the duty of Delhi Jal Board and not of MCD.  Further, he has argued that there is sufficient material on record to show that his property has been damaged.

          To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the testimony of complainant as well as       Shri R.K. Singh, ZRO.  If the testimony of the complainant is perused, it is noticed that he has stated in his testimony that there has been water blockage in the sewer line which caused damage to the property.  Further, he has raised the issue of bill.  Except this, there is nothing in the testimony with regard to any other problem, faced by the complainant. 

          In the testimony of Shri R.K. Singh, ZRO, it has been stated that they have checked the sewer line and water line and there was no problem as such.  They have got the blockage cleared by their staff.  He has further stated that if there would have been any problem in sewer line, the entire area would have been affected, therefore, it was individual drainage problem, not of sewer line.  He has further stated that they have not raised the inflated bill for the period 2006 to 2010.  The complainant have not explained the delay of 5 years about the faulty bills. 

          During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for OP have stated that they have got the bills corrected and revised bill have been given to the complainant, which counsel for complainant have admitted.  The fact that they have given the revised bill, his prayer for correction of the bills goes.

          Even otherwise also, the complainant have raised the issue in respect of the bills for the period 2006 to 2010 and have filed the complaint in the year 2015 which is beyond the period of limitation.  Even on this score, this prayer does not survive. 

          From the testimony of complainant as well as Shri R.K. Singh, it comes out that they have got the sewer line and water line checked and has cleared the blockage.  When they have got the sewer line and water line checked and in the absence of any material on record to show that complainant have suffered any loss and damage to the property, the question of any directions to OP and awarding any damage does not arise.  The issue raised by the complainant seems to be drainage problem which comes under the jurisdiction of MCD (East). 

          The evidence on record do not suggest any deficiency on the part of Delhi Jal Board (OP), therefore, the complaint is devoid of any merits which deserves its dismissal and the same 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.

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                          (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                                 President