CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 232/2014
Sh. Rajan Kapoor
R/o B-3, Top Floor, Friends Colony (West),
New Delhi-110065 ……Complainant
Versus
1. Delhi Jal Board
Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi
2. H.Q. at
Varunalaya Phase-II, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005 ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 16.06.14 Date of Order : 19.09.15
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is resident of B-3, Top Floor, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi and he is a user of new KNO : 1638331000/ Old WCN : 11387 in the name of Smt. Uma Wati Mehra. He was regularly paying water bills from time to time for last many years and the bill had been in the range of Rs.2,000/- for a period of 2-3 months. In the month of February, 2013 a bill for Rs.16,441/- was raised for a period of 165 days which was highly excessive. He visited the office of OP many times and he was assured that the bill would be rectified in next bill plan. In the meanwhile, he was asked to deposit the bill to avoid disconnection though he filed a complaint with OP but, however, in order to avoid disconnection he deposited the whole amount under protest. OP continued to issue inflated bills and he received a bill for Rs.11,592/- (for 84 days) in May 2013, Rs.13,731/- (for 59 days) in July, 2013. He again personally visited the OP office many times and met a number of officers/officials and again was promised rectification of bills. However, he was once again forced to deposit the bills to avoid disconnection. He again filed a complaint with OP and deposited the bill under protest. Thereafter he started regularly visiting the OP office for rectification of bills. Consequently some officials of OP visited his premises and assured him that the meter was faulty and has been rectified. They assured him that the excess payment made by him would be adjusted in the subsequent bills but however they asked to deposit the bill so that there was no disconnection. Thereafter, he received a bill of Rs.1100/- (for 61 days) for the period from 06.06.13 to 06.08.13 in October, 2013 which was duly deposited by him on 23.10.2013. Thereafter, he received a bill dated 31.05.14 for the period from 11.09.2013 to 27.05.2014 for a staggering amount of Rs.88,914/- which was blatantly false and excessive. When the Complainant was not able to get his grievance redressed, he approached this Forum as a last resort and filed the present complaint, alleging deficiency in service on part of the OP praying for directions to the OP to:-
- give adjustment in respect of the bills charged in excess from the Complainant.
- pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the Complainant.
- pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as litigation charges.
OP in its reply has stated that the Complainant is not the registered consumer/registered user of the water connection No.1638331000 which is in the name of Uma Wati Mehra. The Complainant has not placed any document on record to prove his locus standi to file the present complaint. The bills were issued to the registered consumer on the actual reading basis from time to time. The consumer had changed his water meter on 11.09.2013 on his own and without the permission of the OP. The impugned bill is absolutely accurate and the same is raised as per the tariffs of OP. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the OP. According to him, he is the user of the water connection and he has corresponded with the OP on a number of occasions in connection with the water connection in question. He has further submitted that the water meter was changed by the OP on its own and the signatures of the complainant were duly obtained in a file after noting the reading of the meter replaced.
Complainant filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. P. K. Kamalaswanan, ZRO (S)-II has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. However, in his affidavit the witness of the OP has narrated new facts in Para No. 4. Para No. 4 of the affidavit of the OP’s witness is reproduced hereunder:
“4. That I say that there are 3 water connections existing at the premises no. B-3, Friends Colony, Delhi, which are connected to a common underground tank and the supply into the common tank is operated individually by each connection holder. Therefore, in these circumstances the current assessment of average consumption of each water connection cannot be made separately, there can be a possibility to hold the water supply by any one connection and in that event the consumption may increase by other two connections. The photocopies of the latest bills of all three connections along with photocopies of meter diary plate and billing summary are exhibited herewith as Ex R-1 (colly), Ex R-2 (colly), Ex R-3 (colly) respectively. The comparative chart of the consumption of these three connection numbers i.e., K No. 1638331000, K. No. 2638331000 and K. No. 3638331000 is exhibited herein as Ex R-4 (colly).”
As stated hereinabove, the facts pleaded in Para No. 4 were not incorporated in the reply filed by the OP. Thus, the complainant has been taken by surprise and these new facts cannot be allowed to be pleaded. In any case, if we allow these facts to be taken into consideration, even then the case of the OP has no legs to stand. Ex R-1, Ex R-2 and Ex R-3 (Copies of bills) are in respect of Old WCN: 11387 and New K.No.: 1638331000. Ex R-1 is the copy of the bill dated 25.5.15 for Rs. 105271/- payable before 11.6.15. Ex R-2 is the bill dated 25.5.15 for an amount of Rs. 29,114/- payable before 11.6.15. Ex. R-3 is the copy of bill dated 25.5.15 for Rs. 16,315/- payable before 11.6.15.
Ex. R-1, R-2 and R-3, all are for the period 27.5.14 to 2.7.14 and 2.7.14 to 23.5.15. Thus, the OP has not filed the bills for the period in dispute which means that the averments made in the complaint have remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. There is no iota of material on the record which may even remotely show that the complaint or for that purpose the registered consumer had herself/himself changed the water meter No. 1368331000 on 11.9.2013 on his/her own and without permission of the OP. It is also not in dispute that it was the complainant who had made payment of the water bills for the period in question. Therefore, the complainant has the locus standi to file the complaint and he has the locus standi to file the complaint against issuing bills for highly excess amount. Case of the complainant stands proved. Therefore, we hold that the OP has committed deficiency in service.
In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to give adjustment in respect of the bills charged in excess for the period in question, to pay Rs. 20,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
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 19.09.15.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
19.9.2015
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed. OP is directed to give adjustment in respect of the bills charged in excess for the period in question, to pay Rs. 20,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
