ORDER                               Dated:  19.09.2016

    Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint on 5-3-2015 and
alleged that he is running a chemist shop at Khari Baoli and a water
connection bearing no.K. 863269000  is installed by OP at his shop.
It is further alleged that the shop opens at 11.30 A.M. but OP did not
supply the water at that time and during the whole day till the shop
is closed but OP issued water bills regularly and LPSC is levied
continuously.  Complainant further alleged that the  OP is harassing
the complainant intentionally and deliberately without any rhyme and
reason and he is  not liable to pay any unnecessary or uncalled for
demands as no water is used by the complainant at the said shop. The
complainant again sent a legal notice dated 05.05.2015 which was duly
served but no reply received from the OP .  Hence it is prayed that OP
be directed to withdraw the unnecessary demand along with LPSC and if
water supply is not possible then the connection shall be
disconnected. Complainant also prayed for compensation of Rs 50,000/-
and cost of litigation.



2.     In reply, OP admitted that the water connection   to the
complainant and admitted that  the bills raised by the OP was not for
the water uses but for the service charges raised every month  as to
the water connection of the complainant. OP denied rest of the
allegations made in the complaint.



3.     The complainant   has filed rejoinder to the reply and
explained that the objections filed by OP are baseless. In support of
his complaint the complainant filed his own affidavit along with
documents. In support of reply OP filed affidavit of Mrs Poonam Vig.
Both the parties filed their written arguments.



4.     We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by
the parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points
to be considered are as under:-

(a) Whether complainant is a consumer?

(b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

( c) Relief?

     5.  As OP did not deny that the water connection of the
complainant was related with the chemist shop       and water
connection in a Chemist Shop cannot be considered for commercial
purpose.   Hence, complainant is a consumer.

    6.    It is evident from the affidavit of Mrs Poonam Vig , ZRO  of
OP  that the bills raised by the OP were related to the service
charges and not for the water usage.  On 20.07.2016 , complainant
restricted his prayer to the exemption from LPSC  and willing to make
the payment of the rest of the amount. But on 22.8.2016 ZRO of OP
stated that in a commercial connection there is no policy to waive of
the LPSC . In our considered opinion water connection in a chemist
shop cannot be treated as  a commercial connection ,therefore, looking
to the facts and circumstances of the case wherein there is no water
usage by the complainant his LPSC may be exempted.  Therefore, we
direct OP to waive of LPSC to the complainant considering his water
connection is not commercial as observed above and issue a revised
bill for the rest of the amount within 30 days from the date of
receipt of this order. After making this payment to the OP the
complainant may move an application for disconnection of water supply.

   7.    File be consigned to record room.

Announced on ………………..