29.04.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that the Delhi Jal Board in the year 1999-2000 launched a scheme for unauthorized colony that 20% rebate will be provided  on present rate if the residence paid the whole development charges and officials of DJB assured that the water development charge is accepted after the site verification by Z.E. (Water) if the size  of house is found true than new water connection will be issued and no extra charge will be taken in future.
2. It is stated that complainant given Rs.3700/- to his relative Raj Kumar for depositing water development charges of 100 sq. yard but fraudulently Raj Kumar Pandey deposited Rs.1850/- in his own name and Rs.1850/- in the name of complainant on 31.07.2000 for 50 sq. yard at the rate of relevant time. It is further stated that when complainant came to know this fraud than filed a civil suit in the court of law. It is stated that on 26.12.2013 water distribution system in IP colony part I was completed and complainant applied for new water connection for undisputed 50 sq yard of house on 14.03.2014 (file no.2985) and met Z.R.O Burari who assured the complainant that after verification of house size by Z.E (water) new connection could be issued.
3. It is stated that Z.E (water) verified and found the size of house was intact but suggested that after notification the new connection will be issued. It is further stated that on 15.07.2014 public notification was issued and DJB Burari given a discount of 20% at the present rate on new connection. It is stated that complainant requested many times but no new water connection issued to him and at that time complainant was suffered  fracture in both hands. It is stated that the new connection was not issued to complainant on the pretext of court case pending. Although complainant submitted written stamp paper and court documents.
4. It is stated that firstly Z.R.O Burari told the complainant that at the old rate of (2000) water development charge of 50 sq. yards had deposited in the name of complainant and after notification new water connection will be installed but later after notification Z.R.O denied and given impugned order of depositing whole development charges at current rate. It is further stated that after many complaints and several visits to the office of DJB Burari, Rohini and Varunalya than new connection issued on 24.12.2014 on payment of whole development charges of Rs.17,082/- again.
5. It is stated that on 05.01.2015 complainant filed RTI regarding discrepancy in rate of water development charges and taking twice water development charge to office  of DJB Varunalya and fortunately Z.R.O Burari met there and assured the complainant that 20% rebate would be provided if complainant apply after some time. It is further stated that on 06.05.2015 complainant applied for rebate on development charges than told that it would be adjusted in future bills but on 14.05.2015 complainant received a call from Z.R.O that no rebate would be provided.
6. The complainant seeking a decree to give direction to OPs to return wrongly taken water development charges of Rs.17,082/- twice on 17.12.2014 with interest of 18%, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment of nine months and pass any other order  deem fit and proper.
7. OP1 2 and 3 filed WS alongwith application for condonation of delay and taken preliminary objection that present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It is stated that complainant is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is stated that complainant has failed to comply with provision of section 96 of the Delhi Water Board Act 1998 and statutory notice has not been served on different dates, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. On merit all the allegations are denied. It is stated that in the year 2000 there were new water line in the area of the complainant were laid down. It is further stated that DJB vide its decision no.521D/23.02.2000 reconsidered its earlier decision for laying of internal water line in unauthorized regularized colonies subject to certain conditions. It is stated that under the policies many residents of IP  colony deposited the first installment of the water development charges but the said despite did not amount to 75% of the amount of the total development charges to be collected as a prerequisite of initiating the development work. The copy of circular dated 21.04.2000 and public notice dated 31.07.2000 filed on record.
9. It is stated that officials of DJB had given no assurance to complainant. It is stated that officials of defendant had visited the property of complainant and given its report by stating that it is a disputed property and case is pending in the court and complainant was asked to attach the copy of judgment and size of site of plot is 50 sq. yards but complainant had furnished 100 sq. yards and area was not notified till that day. It is stated that plaintiff was also asked to attach the ownership documents.
10. It is stated that a rebate of 20% will be given to the property owner on the total due amount if the same is deposited in lump sum within three months from the date of notification but complainant had not deposited within the stipulated period, therefore, not entitled for 20% rebate. It is stated that the present rate at the time of notification will be applicable and if any amount paid before that will be deducted as per the provisions. It is further stated that complainant had paid Rs.17,082/- only when he satisfied that the said amount is due and payable by him to DJB.
11. It is stated that the rebate of 20% is not given to complainant as he had not deposited in time. It is further stated that the complainant had applied before notification i.e 14.03.2014 whereas the notification came on 14.12.2014, therefore, complainant is not entitled for rebate. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. Replication filed by complainant wherein all the allegations are denied and contents of complaint are  reiterated.
13. Complainant filed  evidence by way of affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. The complainant referred to documents filed on record but not put exhibit numbers.
14. The OP failed to file evidence despite several opportunities and vide order dated 06.08.2018 right to file evidence of OP was  closed. As per record on behalf of OP an application filed for amendment of WS and review of ex parte order and same was dismissed vide order dated 04.04.2022.
15. Written argument filed on behalf of complainant. The complainant also  filed photocopy of civil suit appeal judgment dated 20.04.2015 and judgment of Hon’ble High Court RSA 263/2015 dated 08.05.2017. OP failed to file written arguments.
16. We have heard complainant in person and Sh. Netrapal Senior Assistant for DJB and also gone through the record.
17. The complainant is the owner and in possession of property measuring 100 sq yards falling in Khasra no.40/5 situated at Gali no. 3, Main 25 ft road, Indraprastha colony Part 1 Amrit Vihar. As per copy of judgment filed by complainant of the court of Sh. L.K Gaur Ld. Additional District Judge Each District Karkardooma Courts dated 24.04.2015. Prior to this Trial Court also decreed the suit of complainant having no.222/07 vide order dated 22.03.2012 titled as Adya Pandey Vs. Deenanath Pandey and Ors. As per orders of Hon’ble High Court dated 08.05.2017, “Deenanath Pandey and Ors.”, filed Regular Second Appeal but same was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. The complainant filed present complaint in the year 2015, however the litigation with regard to the property was pending since 2007.
18. It is admitted by DJB that vide circular dated 21.04.2000 the residents of the IP colony are required to deposit first installment of the water development charges. It is further admitted by DJB that a rebate of 20% on total due amount on deposition of lump sum within three months from date of notification was also granted. As per complainant his relative Raj Kumar Pandey against whom complainant had filed a civil case deposited water development charges in the name of complainant and also in his own name of Rs.1850/- for 50 sq. yard each. The complainant had filed the deposit receipts one is his name and other is in the name of Raj Kumar Pandey. It is pertinent to mention here that total development charges were deposit for 100 sq. yards. As per above discussed Hon’ble High Court judgment the complainant is the owner of 100 sq. yard of the property, therefore, his relative wrongly deposited 1850 in his name. It is admitted by DJB that complainant also deposited 17,082/- on 17.12.2014.
19. The DJB did not consider the material facts that complainant and Raj Kumar Pandey were contesting a civil suit. The civil suit finally decided by Hon’ble High Court. The complainant becomes the owner and in possession of the property measuring 100 sq. yard as described hereinabove. As per documents filed on record complainant deposited two times the development charges first on 31.07.2000 and 17.12.2014. The first payment is within the circular 21.04.2000. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant is the owner of 100 sq. yards and the amount deposited by Raj Kumar Pandey is on behalf of complainant, therefore, the total amount of development charges deposited on 31.07.2000 is 3700/- on behalf  of complainant. In our considered view DJB, cannot claim development charges from complainant two times, therefore, there is deficiency of service proved on record on the part of DJB. In these peculiar circumstances complainant is also entitled for 20% rebate as per policy.
20. On the basis of above observation and discussion, we hold DJB deficiency of service and direct to refund Rs.17,082/- and further direct to give 20% rebate on Rs.3700/-, we further grant cost of Rs.10,000/- to complainant against OP. We further direct OP to comply the order within 30 days from the receipt  of copy of order. In case of default we direct to pay 6% interest on 17,082/- till realization.
21. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  29.04.2024.

      SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER