DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 184/2014
Ms Manju Prasad Senior Citizen
W/o Sh. K.A. Prasad (68 years old)
K-69/4 Maidan Garhi Extn.
Chhatarpur Maidan Garhi Road,
New Delhi- 110074 ….Complainant
Versus
- Zonal Officer,
Water Supply (DJB) South-1
Saket, New Delhi.
- Director( Revenue),
Director Delhi Jal Board, Room No. -512,
Varenalaya Building Phase-2,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution: 13.05.2014
Date of Order : 17.05.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant who is now 68 yrs. of age is that she is a legal consumer of the OPs since 1994 and paying water bills without any break but despite that connection to her premises was disconnected without any reason and the OPs did not take any pain. She has suffered financial losses by purchasing six water tankers per month for Rs. 800/- per tank. Supply to her house is still not restored. Number of complaints were made in this regard. RTI applications were also filed in this regard but to no effect. Hence she has filed the present complaint for awarding Rs.15,00,000/- for physical and mental harassment due to negligence of the OPs.
In the reply the OPs have inter-alia stated that the complainant has got no “locus-standii” to initiate the present proceeding as the area is based on tube-well water supply and water level has gone down considerably and hence the discharge of the tube well is very low as a result of which residents at the tail end are not getting adequate supply of the water. They have denied any deficiency in service on their part. It is stated that water tankers are being sent to the residents on regular interval at the @ 18,000 KL per month ; that being registered consumer of Delhi Jal Board the underground water tank of the consumer(Complainant) is regularly filled by the OPs through their tankers; that as far as free water supply is concerned only drinking water is supplied to the residents other than the register consumers. It prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In the rejoinder the Complainant has inter-alia stated that a copy of connection No. 84984 dated 23.05.1994 is given by the OP to her and hence it is quite evident that the OP has been claiming the water charges from the date of connection. It is stated that the Complainant is unable to get water from pipe line connection for the last several years for which she is entitled to. It is stated that “apart from the water supply through tube well, the Sonia vihar water supply pipe is also passing through near to my house. This required only to give connection in the pipeline which is already lay out and provided in my colony. For further action, an authority may be deputed to verify the actual position.”
The Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence.
On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Ram Niwas, ZRO has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
We have heard the arguments of the Complainant’s husband and the Head Clerk (Revenue) for the OP and have also very carefully gone through the record.
The controversy between the parties is with regard to the supply of water to the premises of the Complainant.
On 26.09.2016 the Complainant stated that OP DJB has been supplying water through water tankers in her colony including her for the last two years regularly but the supply is not sufficient and hence directions be issued to the OP to supply more water. To this, it was submitted on behalf of the OP that the complainant could move an application on behalf of all the residents in the office of the OP in this behalf which shall be considered sympathetically and according to the rules. However, the complainant did not become ready to move any application. One thing is clear that water is being supplied to the entire colony including the house of the Complainant through water tankers for the last two years regularly. Whether or not the supply is sufficient or not is not a question which can be decided under the Consumer Protection Act. This requires the matter to be investigated in minute details and thoroughly and may perhaps invite evidence from both sides. The main grievance of the complainant that water was /is not being supplied to her house has been resolved. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any further relief not for grant of any compensation.
In view of the above discussion, the complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
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 17.05.17.
