DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.240/2018
Kumud Rustogi,
W/o Sh. Kishan Chand Rustogi,
Flat No.50, Pink Apartments,
Sector-18-B, New Delhi-110078
Also at:
Flat No.272, Heritage Apartments,
Plot No.10, Sector-11, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110075 ….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority,
Through Vice Chairman
B Block 1st Floor,
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi-110023 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 13.08.2018
Date of Order : 27.01.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
It is the case of the complainant that they applied for a water connection to OP-DDA on 13.05.2005. According to complainant, the meter was installed on 31.05.2005, in support of which complainant relies on a satisfactory certificate issued by JE dated 31.05.2005. It is further stated that complainant has not received any water bill despite installation of meter till bill which was raised on 28.04.2016 for a sum of Rs. 20,019/- which included previous outstanding of Rs. 16,677/- Thereafter the complainant has been writing letters to OP for issuance of bills as per consumption, but no heed was paid to their requests. It is further stated that the complainant on its own deposited an aggregate sum of Rs.19,651/- between 18.06.2005 and 27.01.2012 which included a sum of Rs. 500/- deposited on 18.06.2005. The complainant has prayed for direction to OP in respect of customer ID no. DDA DWK 0000617 as per the consumption recorded in the water meter, not to charge surcharge/late payment charges and pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and torture. Litigation expenses of Rs. 15000/- is also prayed for.
OP in its written statement has taken a defense that certificate issued by JE on 31.05.2005 means that the ‘water connection’ has been done but does not mean that the ‘water meter connection’ has been done. It is further stated that water meter is to be installed by the complainant only after depositing the security money/advance payment of water. Since the complainant has failed to inform the OP about installation of water meter, bills were not generated on the meter reading instead were raised on average charge basis w.e.f. 01.01.2012 till 31.03.2016. It is claimed total outstanding of bills as on 16.07.2018 is Rs. 66,651/- inclusive of surcharge of Rs. 20,891/-. It is further stated that OP has requested complainant vide its letter dated 16.08.2016 and 20.09.2016 to submit documents related to confirmation of installation of water meters to buttress its plea that OP was not aware of meter installation at the premises of complainant.
The parties have led their respective evidence reiterating their respective positions in the pleadings.
This Commission has gone through the certificate issued by JE of OP on 31.05.2016 which is relied upon by both the parties. The said certificate categorically mentions that meter connection is installed satisfactorily on 31.05.2005 and initial reading of the meter is 0000.25.
The plea of OP that there is a thin but noticeable difference in the expression “connection installed” and “meter installed” is not sustainable. In the opinion of this Commission the expression “meter connection installed satisfactorily” can be attributed only one meaning that is, a water connection which can be metered has been installed therefore it was within the knowledge of the OP that the meter had been installed, therefore, incumbent upon them to obtain the reading on the meter accordingly bill as per reading in the meter.
OP has relied upon the following noting in the said certificate dated 31.05.2005 to argue that since complainant has failed to intimate them about installation of meter in their premises therefore, they were not obliged to take meter reading and are justified in raising bill on an average basis.
“3. The allottee of the flat is requested to deposit Rs. 500/- as advance water charges and security. He is required to get the meter installed at his own cost immediately”.
The Complainant has categorically stated that a sum of Rs 500/- was deposited on 18.06.2005, OP in its affidavit by way of evidence admitted deposit of Rs. 500/- vide receipt no. 138333 but has still denied its responsibility to take meter reading because complainant never informed OP about meter installation. According to OP, complainant till 2016 did not inform them about installation of meter till 2016 however has not filed any document on record about the said intimation in 2016. This Commission is of the view since JE of OP had issued a certificate on 31.05.2005 it is deemed to be aware of installation of water meter, they cannot take shelter of their failure to bill as per meter reading because complainant has not informed them about it. More so when the requisite deposit of Rs. 500/- was made on 18.06.2005, at least from the said date OP is deemed to be aware about installation of water meter. The plea of the OP that they received the intimation from complainant in 2016 thereafter they started raising bill as per meter reading is not acceptable in the absence of any document of such intimation produced before this Commission.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh AIR 2004 SC 2141 had occasion to deal with power of consumer courts in dealing with complaints against statutory and public authorities wherein the following was observed:
“Thus, the law is that the Consumer Protection Act has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities. Such authorities become liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office i.e. an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen.”
“The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him.”
XXXXX
“Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. It helps in curing social evil. It will hopefully result in improving the work culture and in changing the outlook of the office/public servant. No authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. Matters which require immediate attention should not be allowed to linger on. The consumer must not be made to run from pillar to post. Where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non-exercise of power by an officer of the authority, the Commission/Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation.”
In view of the above discussion, this Commission holds OP negligent and deficient in performance of its duties towards the complainant. OP is directed to raise a revised bill as per standard/average water meter readings from 18.06.2005 without adding any surcharge/penalty for late payment within one month from the date of this order, coinciding with the next billing period. If any amount is found due from the complainant, he is at liberty to pay the arrears in three equal monthly installments.
OP is further directed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs 50,000/- towards mental harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of three months from the date of this order failing which they would be liable to pay an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
