| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/393/12 Date of Institution:- 10.10.2012 Order Reserved on:- 05.03.2024 Date of Decision:- 25.09.2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Molly John W/o Sh John Kutty Joseph R/o Block-L, Plot No.168 Street No.5A, Mahipalpur,New Delhi - 110037 .….. Complainant VERSUS Delhi Jal Board Through its J.E./Z.E. Vasant Kunj New Delhi - 110070 .…..Opposite Party Per Dr. Harshali Kaur, Member - Briefly stated, the facts of the present Complaint are that the Complainant took a water connection no.12982, vide K. No.1817005090, for domestic use from the O.P. She paid Rs.16,380/- to the O.P. on 17.09.2008 and Rs.1,110/- on 16.01.2009 towards the Connection. The Complainant also paid Rs.800/- for the Boring Permission from the competent authority of the O.P. vide R/R charges no.0935 on 25.09.2009.
- Despite following due process, the Complainant alleges that the O.P. did not provide any water to her since taking the Connection on 17.09.2008, even though a pipeline was running in front of her house.
- The Complainant further states that on requesting the O.P. operator one, Mr. Kartar, to make the water available to her, she was denied the same and wasinstead asked to take water from street no.3 instead of street no.7, which had boring and nearest to her premises.
- The Complainant alleges that the O.P. has been raising bills without supplying water in her Connection. She visited the O.P. office with a request to provide her water connection but to no avail. The Complainant has tabulated the sum she has paid towards the water without any connection at her premises as given below:
Bill No. Bill Date Amount 48367 12.07.2010 568.00 12982 31.03.2010 226.00 142236 04.12.2009 424.00 8367 04.09.2008 393.00 47350 18.06.2009 200.00 - The Complainant admits to not paying any further bill since 12.07.2010 as she did not get a connection and has also annexed a copy of the last bill received by her, i.e. bill no.198095193435 amount to Rs.7126/- which she did not pay.
- The Complainant visited the O.P. and also called them several times. She further wrote letters to the J.E. of the O.P. on 11.08.2011 and the ZE on 27.09.2011, and she also sent a reminder on 31.05.2012 detailing her grievance, but the O.P. did nothing to resolve her issue.
- Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., the Complainant filed the present Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. She has prayed for directions to the O.P. to provide a water connection at the earliest and adjust the paid amount for the bills in the forthcoming bill after her Connection is operational, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental torture, pain and agony and Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges.
- On notice, the O.P. filed their reply stating therein that the Complainant resides in an unauthorised colony near MahipalPur Village. As per the planned Rationalized Distribution Scheme of water supply in Delhi, this part of the Colony comes under MahipalPur UGR, which the O.P. is constructing. The O.P. has taken over the land for the construction of UGS from DDA, which is expected to be completed in the next three years.
- Hence, as an interim arrangement, water is being supplied in this area through tube wells installed at various locations depending on space and groundwater availability. Since the area where the Complainant resides is thickly populated and developed in an unplanned manner, there is no space to install more tubewells or deepen the existing tubewell, as the quality of groundwater will deteriorate with an increase in depth.
- The Complainant regularly uses the water supplied by the O.P. and hence cannot refuse to pay the water charges as per rules and regulations/tariffs. The O.P. is not liable for providing water to an unauthorised colony where the Complainant resides and has not been paying the bills as per his own statement in her Complaint.
- Further, the Complainant installed the water connection in the pipeline in front of her house, a four-storey building rented to several tenants; hence, the water supply does not fulfil the significant water demand by her tenants. Undoubtedly, water supply remains available in the pipeline near her house but at a low pressure, which is a limitation of groundwater.
- The O.P. denies that they raised bills without any water to the Complainant, stating instead that bills were raised against the sanctioned and installed water connection bearing K No.1980911000 (old no.1817005090) water connection no.12982. The O.P. claims that the Complainant has neither installed the water meter nor paid any water bills in the last more than two years.
- On receipt of her Complaint, the O.P. stated that they checked on the distribution network and found that the low-pressure problem was due to excess water withdrawn by the residents upstream of her house and less discharge of tubewell, which is beyond the control of the O.P. Hence, the case deserves dismissal.
- The Complainant filed rejoinder along with a copy of the bill dated 11.01.2013 and her affidavit to be read as evidence reiterating the statement made in the Complaint. The O.P. filed the affidavit of Sh. Arvind Gupta, Executive Engineer of the O.P. who, also echoed the statements made in the reply. Both parties filed their written arguments, and we have heard the Complainant on the date fixed for final oral arguments. Despite several opportunities, the O.P. did not appear; hence, liberty was granted to address arguments in the instant Complaint within 07 working days, and the order was reserved.
- We have carefully reviewed the facts and circumstances of the Complaint and have perused the documents filed by contesting parties to substantiate their testimonies. The Complainant has filed a copy of the bills issued by the O.P. that she paid. The Complainant herself has admitted that she did not pay any further bills after 12.07.2010. The Complainant has filed a copy of the invoices generated by the O.P. for the New Connection Charges dated 16.01.2009 and Boring Permission dated 25.09.2009.
- We find that the admitted facts of the Complaint are that the Complainant took a water connection from the O.P. and paid Rs.16,380/- on 17.09.2008, which was sanctioned, and water connection No.12982 vide K. No.1817005090 was given to her. She further paid Rs.1,110/- towards this Connection and Rs.8,000/- for boring permission. The Complainant has annexed copies of the receipts towards the aforementioned payments with her Complaint.
- The Complainant's case is that despite giving a connection to her and raising bills, which she paid regularly since 2008, when the Connection was sanctioned till 2010, no water was supplied to her through her Connection. She repeatedly requested that she be supplied water from the tubewell near her premises. However, her request was rejected/denied by the O.P. officials.
- The O.P.admits that the Complainant was given water through tube wells, and because the Complainant resides in an unauthorised area, they are not liable to supply her with water. However, water was being provided through alternate means due to UGR construction. The Complainant has not paid any water bills even though she has been consuming the water supplied since 2010, as also admitted by her. The O.P.admits that though water is available in the pipeline,the pressure is low,which is a limitation of groundwater.
- In our considered view, the Complainant took the water connection for utilising the water through the Connection and not the water through tube wells. The O.P. has admitted to supplying water through tube wells,which is an alternate arrangement they made. But even this water supply had low pressure,and the Complainant's needs were not met by the water available.
- So far as the O.P.'s claim that theComplainant has tenants in her building and hence consumption is higher, it is for the O.P. to raise bills for water consumption by the resident without looking at the number of users. Also, the Complainant took the water connection for her premises without knowing about the technical aspects of the unauthorised Colony, groundwater limitations or water withdrawn at other areas, affecting the water pressure and availability. These technical aspects should be looked into by the O.P. before taking the consideration amount from the consumers at the time of sanctioning the connections. We, therefore, find that the O.P.were deficient in service as promised to the Complainant at the time of sanctioning her connection no.12982.
- The Complainant admitted to not paying the bills after 2010 in her testimony, which,to our mind, is against the Rules and Regulations agreed upon at the time of sanction of the water connection and despite using the precious resource. Hence, admittedly, she has not paid or deposited any amount towards consumption of water in her four-storey building /property in the unauthorised Colony and under occupancy of tenants as claimed by the O.P. and not disputed by the Complainant. It does not appeal to the logic that no water has been consumed during the last fourteen years.
- Therefore, while allowing the Complaint in these peculiar circumstances, it will be justified that compensation should be subject to the Complainant depositing arrears of dues on the basis of averageof past paid bills prior to 2010. And in future the O.P. shall ensure that the Complainant is provided the water supply through the Connection dulysanctioned by the O.P. The O.P. shall thereafter pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment she faced,inclusive of litigation costs.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 25.09.2024.
| |
