Delhi

North

CC/367/2024

S JASPAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI JAL BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

17 Sep 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.367/2024

Date of filing: 05.09.2024

Date of disposal: 17.09.2024

In the matter of

Sh. S. Jaspal Singh

S/o Sh. S. Avtar Singh

R/o 4677, Roshanara Road,

Delhi-110007                                    …               Complainant

Versus

Delhi Jal Board

Through its Vice Chairman

Varunalaya Bhawan,

Jhendewalan, New Delhi-110005      …               Opposite Party No.1

 

The Zonal Revenue Officer

Delhi Jal Board

Partap Nagar Gulabi Bagh,

New Delhi-110007                                     …               Opposite Party No.2

 

The Zonal Revenue Officer

Delhi Jal Board

O.H.T. Mukherjee Nagar,

New Delhi-110009                                     …               Opposite Party No.3

 

ORDER

17.09.2024

Present:       Shri Shailendra Negi, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.

Shri B S Tiwari, Ld. Advocate for Complainant (Later on)

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. We have heard the arguments of Shri Shailendra Negi and dismissed the complaint indicating that the detailed order shall be released later during course of the day. However, before finishing the matters listed today, Shri B S Tiwari, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant appeared and mentioned this matter. He requested to hear his arguments before passing of the detailed order. Hence, on his request, we have heard the arguments of Shri B S Tiwari, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant also.
2. By way of this complaint, the Complainant has alleged that M/s Delhi Jal Board (DJB) (OP-1 herein) has been raising the water bill under CAT-II consumer category instead of CAT-I consumer category. In the Complainant, different offices of the Delhi Jal Board have been arrayed as separate party. Delhi Jal Board through its Vice Chairman is arrayed as OP-1, Zonal Revenue Officer, Delhi Jal Board, Pratap Nagar Gulabi Bagh has been arrayed as OP-2 and Zonal Revenue Officer, OHT Mukherjee Nagar has been arrayed as OP-3. As all these three functionaries are different offices of Delhi Jal Board, unless necessary, all these three OPs are collectively referred to as DJB or OP in this order.
3. The Complainant is stated to be a resident at the address given in the memo of parties since 15.06.2014. It is the case of the Complainant that on his application, the OP has installed a water connection at his residence sometimes in the month of August 2014. The OP was raising the water bill under consumer category “CAT-I” initially, but sometimes in the month of September, 2014, the OP started to raise the water bill of the Complainant herein under consumer category “CAT-II”, which is for non-domestic commercial purpose. The Complainant alleges that he noticed this change in the bill category only in the year 2021 when he, through his duly appointed Advocate sent a legal notice to the OP. It is stated that the OP, only on 15.11.2023, through its communication informed the Complainant that the water connection is to be considered under “CAT-II” consumer category as the Complainant herein has been utilising the water under a different category other than the category for which the connection was sanctioned. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has stated that the contents of the said letter dated 15.11.2023 is not based on correct facts.
4. First issue that we noticed here is the issue of delay in filing this complaint. The water bills of the Complainant were being issued by OP herein under CAT-II consumer category since September 2015, but the Complainant has filed this complaint after a gap of almost 9 years. There is an inordinate delay of almost 7 years in filing this complaint since the date when the first cause of action has arisen. While explaining the delay, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant states that the Complainant did not notice such change until year 2021. Hence, he has filed this complaint at this stage. This argument of the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant cannot be accepted. The Complainant was in possession of the disputed bills since September 2015 and he has allegedly been making regular payments. Once the Complainant was in possession of the disputed bills and he has been making the payments regularly, the argument that he did not notice the change in consumer category cannot be accepted. The test of a reasonable person is applied to examine such conduct. A reasonable person cannot be expected not to notice such a major change in the billing category after a gap of more than 7 years when disputed bills are received periodically since September 2015 and payments are also made regularly.
5. It is important to mention here that for calculating the limitation period under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, the date on which the first cause of action has arisen, is considered. Subsequent cause of action does not give rise of fresh cause of action. In this context, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kandimalla Raghavaiah Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. [(2009) 7 SCC 768], in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of calculating the limitation under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, the date on which first cause of action has arisen should be considered. In the case in hand, the cause of action has arisen in September 2015, when the disputed bill was raised. However there is no document on record to suggest that the Complainant has approached the OP for correcting the disputed bill since September 2015 till 2021, when he sent a legal notice through his Advocate to the OP. Only explanation for such delay is that the Complainant did not notice the change of category in the bills earlier. Such is not a valid reason for explaining the delay in filing the complaint.
6. It is also to be noted that the Complainant has not filed any application seeking condonation of delay. In absence of any such application, once a delay has been noticed, there is no other option before us than to dismiss this complaint on the ground of delay. In this context, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Kandimalla Raghavaiah case (Supra), in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the complaint is liable to be dismissed, if the delay is not duly explained. In the case in hand, the Complainant has not filed any application seeking condonation of delay and has not explained sufficiently and satisfactorily, the reasons for the delay in filing this complaint.
7. Further, in the matter of State Bank of India vs B S Agriculture (I) [(2009) 5 SCC 121], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Consumer Forum should deal with the merit of the case only if the complaint is filed within the limitation period or if the Complainant has explained the cause of delay. In such case, the Consumer Forum is required to pass a reasoned order on condonation of delay application. If the Complainant has been filed beyond limitation period and there is no application giving explanation for condonation of delay, the complaint is liable to be out-rightly rejected.
8. We would also like to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Haryana Urban Development Authority vs B K Sood [(2006) 1 SCC 164] in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has been held as under:

“10. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 expressly casts a duty on the Commission admitting a complaint, to dismiss a complaint unless the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of two years from the date on which the cause of action had arisen.”

9. Although the above referred judgments were passed while explaining the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the said judgments are applicable even under the new legislation i.e. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as the provisions relating to delay are identical and similar in both legislations.
10. In the case in hand, the Complainant has not given any sufficient acceptable cause explaining the delay. Hence, while relying on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above, this Complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as well.
11. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has also argued that the letter dated 15.11.2023, by which the OP has intimated that the categorisation under CAT-II consumer category is correct is also under challenge. He argues that as the said letter was issued on 15.11.2023, this complaint is within limitation. We are not agreeable to this argument for the reason that this letter of the OP is not in response to any letter written by Complainant. There is no document on record to suggest that the Complainant has been in touch with OP since September 2015 and there has been delay on behalf of OP in replying to the representations of the Complainant. Further in this letter dated 15.11.2023, the OP has informed that the water connection was initially approved under “CAT-IA” consumer category for usage of the water connection at ground floor, but as the Complainant moved the connection to the second floor, there was a violation for which the connection has been categorised under “CAT-II” consumer category. When this question was asked that how this letter is not based on correct facts, it was stated by Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that the Complainant is residing at the second floor which is apparent from the rent agreement dated 16.07.2014 signed between the owner of the property and the Complainant. It is further stated that the Complainant applied for the water connection only on second floor. However the copy of the water connection application submitted by Complainant on 21.07.2014, which is also annexed, does not support the argument of Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. In the entire application, it is nowhere mentioned that the water connection is applied for second floor. Merely having a rent agreement indicating second floor is not sufficient. In the application, the floor of the building where water connection is intended to be used must be mentioned. In absence of any such entry in the application form, we cannot accept the argument of Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that the connection was applied for second floor of the building. It is also to be noted here that the water bills since 2014 clearly indicates that the building is having just one floor. The bill also does not indicate multi storey building where the water connection was installed. Hence, we do not find any force in the argument of Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that the letter dated 15.11.2023 is based on factually incorrect facts.
12. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has also drawn our attention to the fact that all the bills prior to 2018, the “Water Usage” category is indicated as “Residential” however, since 2018, the said classification has completely removed from the bill. It is a fact that prior to 01.02.2018, when new tariff structure of DJB has been introduced, there were for categories for water supply- Domestic (Category I), Commercial/ Industrial (Category II), Mixed use (Category IA) and Government Institutions (Category II-A). In all these Class I-A and Class-II water connection categories were available funder water usage categories “Residential” and “Non-Residential”. However, since 01.02.2018, all such connections have been categorised as “Domestic Connections” (Category- I) and “Non-Domestic Connections- Commercial and Industrial” (Category- II). The sub classification of water usage has also been dispensed with since 2018. Hence, the water usage categorisation is not available in all water bills since 01.02.2018. Hence, We, therefore, find no merits in the complaint.
13. Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, this complaint is dismissed on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits. No costs.
14. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties in accordance with law and applicable rules/ regulations.
15. Upon filing of appropriate application by the Complainant within 7 days from receipt of this order seeking return original documents filed with the complaint, if any, office is directed to return all original documents, after retaining the photo copy of the same for the records. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member