DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.110/18
ORDER
Swami Taxi Service
Sheikh Sarai Phase-I
New Delhi.
Through
Shri Jarnail Singh
S/o Shri Joginder Singh
R/o 1877/15, Govind Puri Extn.
Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.
(GPA Holder)
At Present:
G-5/270, 3rd Floor
DDA Market, Rohini, Sec.16
Rohini, New Delhi-110019. ….Complainant
Versus
Zonal Revenue Officer (PP-1)
Delhi Jal Board, GNCTD
DJBUGR & Buster Pumping Station
Malviya Nagar
New Delhi-110017. ….Opposite party
Date of Institution : 09.04.2018
Date of Order : 13.06.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
Order
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
Complainant vide the instant complaint prayed for an award for directing the OPs for i.e. Zonal Revenue Officer & Delhi Jal Board (hereinafter referred to as OP-1 & OP-2 respectively) (i)cancelling the meter disconnection (ii) change of category of the claimant from category II to Category I’ (iii) direct OPs not to apply present average rate for the past six years as demand in preceding years cannot be so high as taxi stand in question was not so popular; (iv) to direct OPs not to impose surchages; (v) to direct OPs to allow the payment in easy instalment upto 3 years as recovery more than 3 years comes under limitation Act because dues more than 3 years old have become time barred etc.
The brief facts/contentions of the complainant are as under:- The complainant is the authorised GPA holder and running the taxi stand in the trade name of Ms/ Swami Taxi Service. The complainant was having an unmetered water connection from Delhi Jal Board since 31.3.2012 where water was used only for drinking. There was no commercial use of water. Delhi Jal Board installed meter and raised first water bill for an amount of Rs.8,95,434/-. The same is annexed as Annexure-2. The said bill is showing the complainant in category II which is meant for commercial/industrial use. The complainant further added that entire bill is raised on average basis on the basis of water consumption during five days i.e. 24th Oct. 2017 to 29 Oct. 2017. It is also asserted that OPs cannot claim the payment more than 3 years old.
OPs on the other hand, took preliminary submissions to this effect that complainant is not a consumer as defined under C. P. Act, 1986 as complainant’s connection falls under commercial /industrial connection. It was given for the commercial purposes. The OPs also placed before this Commission photocopy of ledger account of the complainant which indicates that the meter of the complainant falls under category II. The Regulation of OPs in this regard can be referred to and seen that the connection was being charged under category II. Hence, the complaint is not sustainable. It is also asserted that no amount had been paid by the complainant since 2007. The OP, also wrote a letter to the complainant on 8.2.2017 with the request to complainant to change/install new meter. The OPs at last installed the meter on 30.10.2017. The non-payment of said bill led to disconnection of meter on 11.12.2017.
All the parties filed written submission as well as evidence in-affidavit. Written statement is on record so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone into the material placed on record and due thought was also given to the oral arguments. The complainant has raised issue against the OP for following unfair trade practice with their consumer. In this connection, he placed reliance on the case law “Indian, Photocopy Co. Ltd. Vs. H.D. Shounie Air 1999 SC2453. It was assailed by complainant that there was no meter at his premises and how the bill can be raised on average basis. It could be done in case of faulty meter . The OPs have raised the substantive law to this effect that the complainant is not a consumer. On this, the complainant referred the definition of consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the CP Act, 1986. As per the clause, any person who buys any goods for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised is a consumer. In the present case, the complainant is purchasing water from OPs for consideration. This definition clause although excludes a person who buys goods for resale/commercial purposes. But perusal of the explanation to this clause shows that the purchase of goods by a person exclusively for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, shall not be considered a commercial purpose. The taxi stand is allotted to Shri Mohinder Singh an individual. The complainant is managing the affairs of taxi stand himself.
The explanation (a) under Section 2(7) of CP Act 2019 reduces the question, what is a commercial purpose as to a question of fact to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not the value of the goods that matters but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. Here in the instant case, the complainant on oath states that he is earning his livelihood from the taxi stand in question. Whereas the OPs have not discharged the onus by not adducing any counter indicating his financial position, nature and volume of the business, which should have been placed on record to prove that the earning from the tax stand is much more than the livelihood as claimed by the complainant. As such, the Commission is convinced that the complainant is covered under the definition of ‘Consumer’.
As regards to raising the bills on the basis of average, we feel that what could be better way of raising the bill in the absence of meter. It is on record that complainant was using the water all through the period without meter. The complainant has also requested the waiver of Late Payment Surcharge. We were briefed that the Govt./Delhi Jal Board comes up with this said waiver scheme from time to time. The counsel also stated that he told the complainant about extension of scheme in the past.
In view of the facts and circumstances this Commission is of the view that the policies of OPs being Govt. organisation, have binding force. Therefore, the complaint fails. The request of the complainant is requested being devoid of merit.
No order as to cost.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
