Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII,      5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi

                                      Complaint Case No. 124/02.07.2018

Rakesh Kumar Saini s/o Sh. R.S. Saini,

R/o 115, Yadav Park Extension, Najafgarh Road,

Nangloi, Delhi-110041                                                                               …Complainant

                                                Versus

The Chief Executive Officer,

Delhi Jal Board, Varunalaya, Phase-II, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110005 

&        

The Zonal Revenue Officer,

Nangloi Water Service, Kothi no. 8, Bhera Enclave,

New Delhi-110063                                                                                      ...Opposite Party

                                                                                    Date of filing:             02.07.2018

Coram:                                                                       Date of Order:            17.02.2024

Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

Ms. Shahina, Member -Female

                                                       ORDER

Inder Jeet Singh, President

1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) –The complainant has grievances of deficiency of services, negligence and unfair trade practice that not only he was issued water bill of higher consumption of 30KL to 45KL/47KL in place of actual consumption between 15KL-18KL liter of water (subject to variance) but also the complainant was denied benefit of waiver scheme of free water upto 20KL, which was available prior to November 2015 and penalty relief scheme of 2017, that is why the complainant is seeking various reliefs in respect of the bill raised to be rectified/corrected, to restrain the OP from disconnecting water connection as well as to direct for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of mental harassment and agony

1.2.  The OP opposes the complaint that neither there is any deficiency of services nor negligence nor unfair trade practice and the complaint is without cause of action. Moreover, because of volume of consumption of water  of 38 KL per month and being beyond limit of 20 KL per month, the benefit of notification dated 27.02.2015 was not available to the complainant vis-à-vis the bill was raised as per the meter reading besides by following the norms while raising the bill from time to time. 

2.1. (Case of complainant) –The complainant is a law abiding citizen. There are about 70/80 houses in the vicinity but it is the complainant only, who applied and took water connection in his residence from OP by depositing development charges of Rs. 26,534/- and connection was installed by arranging the meter, pipes and plumber services at the cost and expenses of complainant. The complainant has been using the water connection as per norms, the first bill dated 06.04.2012 for Rs. 3,430/- was received by him, it was paid on 26.04.2012, thence the complainant never received water consumption bill from OP till 08.03.2016. Whereas, the OP has been issuing excess and wrong billing of water bill, by showing imaginary consumption that too without water meter reading and the bills are being shown on 30 KL regularly for many months and when complainant objected for the same, then OP started showing consumption of 45KL/47KL in order to harass and embarrass the complainant. Whereas, the consumption is not more than 15KL-18KL per month, which may have variations. However, the water consumption upto 20KL per month is being given free by the Government but OP failed to give that benefit of waiving Scheme of 2015 and penalty waiving Scheme of 2017 for which many letters, representations, email, etc. were written to the authorities.

2.2. After payment of bill of Rs. 3,430/- on 26.04.2012, no bill was received till 08.03.2016 when a bill of 666 days  of Rs. 22,181/- payable by 26.03.2016 was received but prior to November 2015 the bill amount was waived off by the Government of Delhi, which was not considered and adjusted in the bill under mala-fide by the OP. During this non-billing period, the OP was showing imaginary consumption of 30KL per month against actual consumption between 15KL to 18KL per month vis-à-vis 20KL per month was made free by the Government for the consumers. The complainant wrote many complaints through email dated 27.07.2016, 12.10.2016, 02.12.2016, 17.03.2017, 13.07.2017 and many more emails upto 30.12.2017 besides speed post letter dated 02.07.2016 but they went futile and the bill keep on increasing with penalty, which was creating mental agony and financial difficulty for want of solution to the issue. The complainant faced threat for water disconnection during these burning hot summer.

2.3 The OP failed to consider complainant’s communication about genuine grievances and the OP started meter reading in 2017 by maneuvering higher consumption and also started showing excess consumption to the tune of 45KL-47KL per month. This constraint the complainant to write representation dated 16.06.2018 for urgent meter check to verify and rectify it impartially, for which he was asked to deposit 25% of the total bill amount being Rs. 12,088/- alongwith Rs. 150/- about ten days back and checking is still pending.

            Whereas, in 2015 the Government has launched Scheme for waiving of all the bills prior to November 2015 and also penalty waiving Scheme was regulated in 2017. The complainant approached organized camp held at Paschim Vihar Water Tank office on 09.12.2017 to get the entire bill corrected and to avail the benefit of Schemes, and complainant had gone there with bona-fide intention to pay the genuine bill based on actual consumption. The officials of OP took the relevant information of K. Number etc and then contacted someone but ultimately told that the bills or penality cannot be waived off.

2.4 The complainant had all the bona-fide to deposit the genuine amount of bill based on real consumption but the OP has ignored all correspondence, emails, request sent to CEO and instead while acting under bias and with ulterior motive, the OP sent its employee on 02.06.2018 and 07.06.2018 to disconnect the water connection, to deprive the complainant of essential commodity for sustenance of life. There was no fault at the end of the complainant. This has caused mental agony and humiliation to the complainant because of deficiency of services on the part of OP. Lastly, the complainant was constraint to send legal notice dated 11.06.2018 to the CEO seeking redress of his grievances and also compensation of Rs. 50,000/-  in lieu of deficiency of services, negligence and for causing harassment etc but there is no reply by the OP. That is why the present complaint for reliefs claimed.

2.5 The complaint is accompanied with photocopies of- first consumption bill paid of Rs. 3,430/-, the subject bill of due date dated 26.03.2016 of Rs. 22,1818/-, other bills, email and correspondence.  

3.1 (Case of OP)-The complaint is opposed by the OP that complainant approached this Commission without clean hands and by suppressing material facts. The complainant is a consumer of OP vide water connection K. No. 9768091000 (old no. 29355) installed at 115, Yadav park, Delhi in the year 2010-2011 and he has been using the water connection, it was a private meter arranged/purchased by the consumer from open market. The consumption was being recorded in the meter as per consumption on monthly basis. However, the monthly water consumption bill was being sent to the consumer but he has not paid the consumer bill except an amount of Rs. 12,088/- and Rs. 150/- on 09.06.2018. The complaint is liable to be dismissed  on the ground of want of advance statutory notice u/s 96 Delhi Water Board Act, 1998.  

3.2. As per consumption recorded in the water connection meter, there is consumption around 38KL per month but the consumer is not ready to pay the consumption charges by alleging that his consumption is not more than 18KL per month; he claims to be a beneficiary covered under the notification no. DJB/DOR/policy/2014-15 dated 27.02.2015 issued by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, however, it is for consumers, who does not consume more than 20KL per month but beyond consumption of 20KL per month the consumer has to pay charges for the entire uses of water as per rules and regulations. The complainant was  to pay the entire bill amount but he is making frivolous complaint and sought RTIs besides serving legal notice upon OP alleging that his meter is not working properly.

            Then on the request of complainant, he was asked to deposit part bill of Rs. 12,088/- and meter testing fee of Rs. 150/-, which was deposited by him on 09.06.2018. The water meter was got tested from Meter Attesting Authority namely L&T Construction on 04.07.2018, it furnished report no. L&T/DJB/LAB/1654 dated 04.07.2018 by opining “Leakage on meter body,  so it cannot be tested on test bench” . It is crystal clear from the report that there was leakage in the water meter and this inspection was conducted during the presence of consumer himself, he also witnessed the report by signing it and receiving its copy. These facts have been concealed in the complaint.

3.3. The OP had launched a scheme which was valid from February 2016 to December 2017 by which 100% rebate was to be given to the consumers for arrears/LPSC upto November 2015. The arrears/LPSC in respect of connection of complainant was Rs. 17,096.88p upto November 2015, it could be waived off in case the payment of current consumer charges are paid. This rebate was also accounted in the bill of consumer on 08.03.2016, which is being shown in the statement of account. The complainant-consumer failed to make the payment of regular consumption charges on the plea that his water consumption is not more than 20KL per month and he deserves benefits under notification dated 27.02.2015 issued by Govt. of NCT of Delhi for consumers of Delhi Jal Board. Whereas, there is consumption of more than 38KL per month in respect of subject connection. The total outstanding dues against the complainant was of Rs. 41,132.98p on 07.07.2008 but the complainant had paid bill amount of Rs. 12,088/- (besides payment of first bill of Rs. 3,430/- on 06.04.2012 against old connection no. 29355).

3.4. Moreover, during the meter reading cycle of 30.04.2018 to 07.07.2018, it was found that there is un-metered water consumption by the complainant by directly connecting his internal pipeline from the pipeline of OP, it was duly recorded in the remarks. These facts have been concealed by the complainant. There is no cause of action but legal notice was sent on 02.06.2018 and 07.06.2018 by falsely alleging for disconnection of water connection in the premises. However,  in the eventuality of non-payment of due bills the water connection will be liable to be disconnected as per rules.

3.5 The reply is accompanied with copy of water bill dated 07.07.2018 of Rs. 41,133/-, statement of account from 09.05.2012 to 07.07.2018, water unit record along-with RMS photographs of water meter reading captured on 07.07.2018, 08.01.2018 and 15.03.2018; meter inspection report dated 04.07.2018 and copy of letter dated 14.07.2018.

4. (Replication of complainant) –The complainant filed detailed replication by denying the allegations of written statement vis-à-vis reaffirming aspects of actual consumption or payment of bills; the consumption was shown on higher side by OP without considering the actual consumption. The complainant was not called to witness the inspection of meter testing nor there was any occasion for him to sign the report. Briefly, the complainant reaffirms the complaint correct.  

5.1. (Evidence)-In order to establish the complaint, the complainant Sh. Rakesh Kumar Saini led his evidence by filing detailed affidavit of evidence, it is supplemented with the documentary record filed with the complaint.

5.2. OP/Delhi Jal Board also led its evidence by filing detailed affidavit Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Zonal Revenue Officer (West-I), it is on the pattern of written statement and documents filed in its support.

6.1 (Final hearing)-The parties were given opportunity to file written arguments as well as to make oral submission. The complainant and the OP filed their detailed written arguments, followed by oral submissions by the complainant himself (a practicing lawyer) and by Sh. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate for OP.

6.2. When the oral submission were in progress, the OP had brought statement of account/account financial history to highlight update information with regard to the status of billing from time to time correspondingly the payments made by the complainant.

7.1 (Findings)-  The rival contentions are considered, keeping in view the case of both the parties, the documentary record filed by them and their logics and submissions in support of their respective case,  besides notification no. DJB/DOR/Policy/2014-15 dated 27.02.2015/02.03.2015 on subject "free water supply upto 20KL per month to every house hold having domestic water connection including Group Housing Societies".

7.2.1. There is an objection by and on behalf of the OP that the complaint is barred by section 96 of the Delhi Water Board Act, 1998 for want of advance notice to institute the suit but it is opposed by the complainant that this objection was taken just for the sake of objection to deny the right of the complainant, the complaint is valid and it was filed properly.

7.2.2.  This answer of this objection is inherent in the law referred, that on plain reading of section 96 of the Act, 1998, it applies to law-suit, which are brought in the form ‘Plant’ under Order-IV (Institution of Suits) CPC but the present case is of ‘Complaint’, it is governed by special statue of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which does not prescribe any requirement of advance notice prior to filing of the complaint. Moreover, the provisions of this Act, 1986 are in addition to and not in derogation of the other law in force. Thus, this objection of OP does not carry any merit, this objection is disposed off against the OP.

7.3. By taking into account stock of all materials, the following conclusions are drawn –

(i) There is no dispute that the complainant was sanctioned and installed consumer domestic water connection at his premises and the first bill amount of Rs. 3,430/- was deposited by him. There was consumption of 298 units in 24 months during this period of bill from 31.03.2010 to 15.03.2012. At that time another connection number was assigned.

(ii) The other bill issued is of 08.03.2016 for Rs. 22,081/- and this bill gives the detail of current period charges from 12.05.2014 to 08.03.2016 with detail. This bill also reflects previous bill no./ID from 15.03.2012 to 12.03.2014 of 697 units and other bill from 12.03.2014 to 12.05.2014 of 70. But the OP has not proved issue of these two bills to complainant except their reflection in the bill of 08.03.2016. The complainant has rightly pointed out that he had not received any bill after the first bill till the bill of 08.03.2016.

(iii) It is also not disputed that the complainant had deposited as a condition precedent amount of Rs. 12,088/- as 25% of outstanding amount of the bill at that time and Rs. 150/- as a testing fee. The testing report dated 04.07.2018 is proved by OP and it shows meter reading of 3023.127 KL at the reception of the meter for Lab test and reading of 3023.166 KL after test.

            The complainant has not mentioned any reading either at the time when the meter was taken for testing to the laboratory by the OP or prior to it. But the bill of due date of 08.03.2016 reflects reading of 1935 Unit on 08.03.2016. The complainant has proved RMS photographs showing reading of 2760 on 08.01.2018 and reading of 2844 on 15.03.2018. The water meter readings at different points of time is in ascending order and as on 04.07.2018 the final reading was 3023.127 KL/3023.166KL.

(iv). The complainant has been maintaining throughout that the consumption was between 15KL-18KL per month but on what basis it is so suggested has not been proved. There is no documentary/photo record of readings in the meter proved by the complainant that it infers actual consumption of 15KL-18KL per month. Is it just an estimate of the complainant, if so, on what basis?  There is no base/evidence.

            But by taking the average slab of consumption enumerated in bill dated 08.03.2016, the monthly consumption average is above 20KL, ranging from 25KL per month to 39.54KL per month.

(v) The OP claims that the testing was done in the presence of complainant which complainant disputes, however, the testing report is proved by the OP (at page no. 24 of the paper book). For the purposes of service of lab test report, the process server mentions that none was available at home on 13.07.2018 and information has been given that they will visit the Water Tank. This clearly shows that report was not prepared in the presence of complainant and it was delivered to the complainant subsequently. In case it was received subsequently, it does not mean that it would be construed presence of complainant at the time of test.

(vi)  There is no contrary evidence by the complainant that the reading being shown either in the first consumption bill or the reading shown in the subsequent bills or the RMS photographs of meter reading from 08.01.2018 to 07.07.2018 are not correct. The OP has also proved the extract of meter reading folder record of different periods, which are matching with meter reading snapped in RMS photographs.

(vii) By taking aforementioned analyses as well as documentary record together, there is nothing that the consumption was between 15KL -18KL per month after the first bill or subsequently the water consumption was not more than 20KL per month.

(viii) As per notification no. DJB/DOR/Policy/2014-15 dated 27.02.2015/02.03.2015 on subject - "free water supply upto 20KL per month to every house hold having domestic water connection including Group Housing Societies"  there is no dispute that those domestic connections having water connection will get free water supply upto 20KL per month wef 1.3.2015 for functional meters but as per its clause (c) the domestic consumer consuming more than 20KL per month will be billed as per applicable tariff for their full consumption. In other words if one is consuming less than 20KL per month in functional meter, one needs not to pay the bill and it will be free supply of water. However, in case one consumes the water more than 20KL per month in functional meter, in that eventuality one has to pay water bill for entire consumption i.e. 20KL per month + above that 20KL.

            Since, the complainant is not qualifying this condition, therefore, waiver off that clause or free water supply would not be applicable to the complainant. In sequel, waiver off LPSC would also not be available to the complainant.  

(ix) The OP in its written statement and also in evidence has repeatedly tried to create an aura that the complainant is consuming the water in the premises from the direct lines, however, it is admitted case of the OP also that water meter was taken for laboratory test. There was already water connection in the premises and OP had also sanctioned the water connection, therefore, by removing water meter for laboratory test by OP does not mean that there is unauthorized water supply from the direct line. Moreover, as per OP’s own letter dated 14.07.2018, the case was forwarded to the technical team for meter replacement. The OP was bound to do it. Therefore, it is not fair on the part of OP to make such allegations against the complainant when the technical team of OP was to make replacement of meter.

(x) At the phase of final arguments, the OP has placed on the file account financial history upto14.11.2023 showing monthly billings as well as payments made.  Moreover, in the proceedings dated 04.03.2020, it was recorded on the request of OP that complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.11,235/- on 23.09.2019 under the rebate scheme, then no balance amount left payable.  This is also reflected on page 1 of pages 3 of account financial history- main list, which was shown and placed on record during the course of final submission.

7.4 In view of the analyses and conclusion drawn in paragraph 7.3, both the sides have their rival stand as well as if and buts, therefore, the same stand answered. It does not make out a case of deficiency of services or of negligence or of unfair trade practice to direct for correction of bills or to declare entitlement of complainant for wavier of bills in respect of said bill of 08.03.2016. Therefore, complaint fails. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

8.  Announced on this 17th of Feb. 2024 [माघ 28, साका 1945]. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for  compliances, besides to upload on the website of this Commission.            

[ijs-25]