DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.1082/2005
Shivalika C.G.H Society Ltd.
through its secretary
Plot No.16, Sector-9, Dwarka,
New Delhi ….Complainant
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Secretary
INA, Vikas Sadan,
New Delhi
2. Asst. Engineer-II,
Western Div.9, Delhi Development Authority,
New Delhi ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 07.12.15 Date of Order : 22.10.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant’s society, in nutshell, is against the inflated/exorbitant water bills allegedly raised by the OP as detailed in the complaint which have not been rectified despite service of legal notice. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP the present complaint has been filed for the following reliefs:
- to calculate, check, correct the un-amended bills served upon the Complainant till date from the date of connection and further serve the Complainant the amended bills as part of their duty
- to adjust the extra amount paid by the Complainant till date
- to refrain from disconnecting the water supply as a measure of interim relief
- to reimburse the cost of the legal proceedings till date.
In the Written Statement OP has inter-alia pleaded that the present complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant has not paid single water bill of the OP till date since the date of connection. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement of OP wherein it is not specifically denied that the Complainant has not paid even a single water bill to the OP from the date installation of water connection till the date of filing of the complaint.
Complainant has filed affidavit of Sh. Naresh Chand Bansal, Secretary in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Lalit Mohan, Executive Engineer, WD-13 has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the Counsel for the OP.
None has appeared on behalf of the Complainant to advance oral arguments despite opportunities given in this behalf.
We have gone through the file very carefully.
In the affidavit of Sh. Naresh Chand Bansal, Secretary of the Complainant’s society it is stated that the Complainant after getting the revised bill dated 02.02.06 for the period 01.01.04 to 15.07.05 has deposited Rs.2,50,000/- vide cheque No.098486 subject to the adjudication by this Forum. We must say at once that no such fact has been recorded in any of the order sheets recorded by this Forum which can show that the said amount had been deposited on behalf of the Complainant by any order passed by this Forum or the depositing of the said amount was subject to adjudication of the complaint by this Forum.
From the deposition made by the OP’s witness it is clear that the said amount of Rs.2,50,000/- had been deposited by the Complainant on receipt of the revised bill for the period 01.01.04 to 02.02.2006 (sic). It is clear that the Complainant had deposited the abovesaid amount with the OP during the pendency of the present complaint. However, from the perusal of the complaint and the prayers made by the Complainant it is crystal clear that the Complainant has filed the present complaint by giving an impression that it had paid the extra amount towards water charges to the OP and, therefore, the OP be directed to adjust the extra amount paid by the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant has filed the present complaint after suppression of the very very material facts from the Forum and has, thus, failed to make out a case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 22.10.16
