Delhi

StateCommission

A/97/2017

KAUSHALYA DEVI AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI JAL BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

NARESH GUPTA

09 Aug 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 31.07.17

     Date of Decision :    09.08.17   

 First Appeal  No. 97/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

            Smt. Kaushalaya Devi Aggarwal(deceased)

            W/o Late Shri R.K.Aggarwal

            R/o A-4, Swarn Singh Road

            Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.

           

            Through Legal heirs

 

1. Shri Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal

S/o Late Shri R.K.Aggarwal

R/o A-4, Swarn Singh Road

Adarsh Nagarm Delhi.

 

2. Smt. Rekha Mittal

W/o Shri Satish Mittal

R/o A-93, Majlis Park,

Delhi-33                                                                                              ……..Appellants

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Versus

 

Delhi Jal Board

Through its Chairman

Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Varunalaya Phase II

Karol Bagh,

New Delhi.                                                                                        …..Respondent

 

 

 

CORAM

HON’BLE SH.O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

SHRI O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

 

                                                                                Judgement

 

            The complainant has come in the present appeal against order dated 08.08.16 passed by District Forum holding that dispute had been resolved and the complaint had become infructous. 

2.         Respondent did not  appear despite service in appeal for 31.07.17.

3.         Perusal of the complaint reveals that appellant was having two water connections, one in her name and another in the name of Ms. Kailash Goyal.  She received bill dated 03.01.09 for the period 17.07.08 to 31.12.08 for Rs. 5958/-.  She received another  bill dated 09.07.09 for Rs. 1782/- for the period 02.12.09 to 08.03.10 for Rs. 3220/- and Rs. 831/- respectively.  She made a request with ZRO of OP to replace the faulty meter and to withdraw the bill receiving reading of the old meter.

4.         Complainant received another bill dated 10.01.11 for Rs. 19,645/- for non-domestic use.  On her request new meter was installed on 10.03.11 and she received bill dated 23.03.12 for Rs. 40,462/- without any basis.  Hence she filed a complaint for quashing the bill and for compensation and cost of litigation.

5.         OP filed a reply justifying the bills.

6.         During pendency of the case before District Forum the revised bill dated 01.03.16 was issued by the OP.  According to said bill after making adjustment of Rs. 9569/- regarding old water connection No. 20265  another bill dated 01.03.16 against old water connection No. 38682.  The raised bill showed zero bill.

7.         Now appellant has come for compensation only.  In complaint she requested for Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation.

8.         The appeal has been filed after expiry of limitation and appellant has moved an application for condonation of delay.  According to her there is delay of 68 days in filing the appeal.  She received copy of the order on 18.11.16.  Thereafter she became  ill  as she was a senior citizen and suffering from various ailments.  Due to that reason she could not file appeal in time.  Later on she expired on 15.12.16. Appeal has been filed by LRs of the appellant.

9.         We do not find that appellant has made out any sufficient cause for condonation of delay.  The application is as vague as it can be.  It did not specify the name of  disease or the period of disease or the name of doctors from whom she took the treatment.  No paper of medical treatment has been filed alongwith application of condonation.  Hence the applications is dismissed.  With this appeal automatically stands dismissed as being time barred by limitation. 

10.       Even on merits we do not find any infirmity in the order.

11.       The consumer must be satisfied when her grievance is addressed.  There can be no appeal for compensation alone which is discretion of the court and not right of the party.

12.       Appeal is dismissed.

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

            One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                       (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                                         MEMBER(JUDICIAL)