Delhi

West Delhi

CC/22/254

HARMNIDER KAUR & PARAMJEET SINGH MUNJAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI JAL BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

07 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUME DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST DISTRICT, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI

 

CC/254/22

In re:-

Harminder Kaur & Anr                                              ………..Complainant

VERSUS

Delhi Jal Board and Ors.                                                    .......... Opposite Parties

Coram:                                                                             

1. SONICA MEHROTRA (PRESIDENT)
2. RICHA JINDAL (MEMBER)
3. ANIL KOUSHAL (MEMBER)

                                                                             Date: 07/11/2022

Present : Complainant in person.

          Adv. Chanchal with Vinod Kr. JE of OP

ORDER

Order by – RICHA JINDAL (Member)                           

The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 wherein he requested for installation of water connection at his residence at C-20, First Floor, Ram Nagar, Gulab Bagh, near Kiran Garden Gurudwara, Uttam Nagar(West) New Delhi through this complaint alleging deficiency in service and is therefore claiming a sum of Rs. 4,50,000 (Four Lakh Fifty Thousand only) as compensation besides following reliefs:

1. To install water connection.
2. To direct OPs not to generate water Bill till the water connection installed.
3. Compensation as well as cost of litigation.

After hearing the arguments on admission court notice was issued to the OP for 08/09/2022 accordingly on 08/09/2022 Adv. Chanchal Sharma with Chetan Kr. Gupta Assistant Engineer, Delhi Jal Board appeared and apprise to this bench that it is the Complainant who did not applied for water connection till date whereas Complainant states that he had already applied for the connection. But the line through which OP was providing the connection, water is not available in that line. Looking into the urgency of this matter, AE was directed to inspect the site and to file the report within 03 days. On 14/10/2022 one Mr. Vinod Kr. JE, Delhi Jal Board appeared before the Commission and filed the inspection Report. According to the inspection report water was exist with DJB water line at the site they further stated that DJB water line is a fixed line which is dedicated to Uttam Nagar Constituency and the supply time for the water is 04:00 am to 05:00am daily . The said report was again objected by the Complainant Hence, OP is directed to show the supply the water through the tap installed in the premises of Complainant and also to do video recording. Finally, on 04/11/2022 both Complainant and JE appeared before the Commission and stated at bar that water meter has already been installed and water supply has been continued in the premises of Complainant. The OP also stated that they have not generated any water bill where in they did not demand anything prior to the water connection. In this regard, OP has also filed the zero Bill as well as the email dated 20/06/2021 which shows that previous water bills were cancelled due to non-availability of the water. In these circumstances, nothing is remained for survival of the complaint since the interim as well as final relief  prayed by the Complainant were duly complied as far as compensation for mental harassment is concerned Since the DJB is a Govt. Deptt. and they settle the grievance of the complaint within two months of filing of complaint.

As far as, compensation claimed by the complainant to the tune of 4 Lakh, we are guided by the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC on similar issue in the case Synco Industries vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur 2002 (3) CPR 105 (SC) held as under that Where complainant has raised consumer dispute against Government bodies like UPSRTC and sought damages in the sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- (four lakh fifty thousand) for covering the cost of travel and other expenses incurred by the complainant, the Supreme Court upholding the order of the National Commission held that it was not a fit case to be tried under consumer protection act. Supreme Court however gave liberty to the complainant to approach the civil court. The Supreme Court further held that

“The complainant had not approached the civil court obviously because before the consumer forum any figure in damages could be claimed without paying court fee. The Supreme court therefore held that the filing of the complaint in the present case amounted abuse of process of Consumer Forum.”

Hence, in our opinion, there is no need to burden the OP with additional cost. Complaint is disposed off accordingly. File be consigned to record room.

 

Richa Jindal                              Anil Kumar Koushal                   Sonica Mehrotra

(Member)                                      (Member)                                 (President