Delhi

North East

CC/184/2014

S.S Nimesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Delhi Jal Board - Opp.Party(s)

03 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 184/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri S.S. Nimesh S/o Late Shri Harkesh Singh R/o:- H. No. J-1411 Vijay Chowk, Opp. Ajanta Budh Vihar Mansarovar Park, Delhi	Complainant
	Versus
	Delhi Jal Board Near Water Tank G.T. Road Shahdara, Delhi	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

19.05.2014 27.07.2022 03.11.2022

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that a water connection has been installed in the property no. J1/1411, Vijay Chowk opposite Ajanta Budh Vihar Mansarover Park, Delhi in the name of Late Smt. Balbiri Devi W/o Shri S.S. Nimesh who expired on 03.02.2005. As per registered will dated 14.06.2004 Complainant is a user/consumer of the said water connection. There are three floors in the premises where the water connection is installed. Complainant stated that on the ground floor of the property is being used as Physiotherapy Clinic by Complainant’s son namely V.N. Singh and the second and third floors are being used for domestic purpose only. It is alleged that Opposite Party converted domestic connection into commercial/industrial category (Category II). Complainant stated that on 16.01.2006 the payment of Rs. 4,000/- against the water bill of Rs. 7,902/- was accepted by the Opposite Party with the assurance of revising the said water bill treating the connection under proper category. Complainant submitted that there is no need to consume water for the physiotherapy treatment of the patients and therefore no water connection was taken for this purpose separately. Complainant stated that the electric connection in this premise is domestic and for Physiotherapy Clinic on ground floor portion a separate electric non-domestic connection is taken. The last bill received from the Opposite Party was Rs. 1,47,691/- on 10.03.2014. Complainant sent a legal notice to Opposite Party on 02.08.2013. Opposite Party replied the said legal notice on 22.08.2013 wherein Opposite Party submitted water in the said premises was being used solely for commercial purpose i.e. physiotherapy centre hence issued bills were proper. The Complainant vide letter dated 13.12.2013 followed by reminder dated 16.01.2014 and 05.03.2014 requested the Opposite Party to revise the water bill according to the proper category i.e. mixed used category (Category-1A). Complainant submitted that Opposite Party issued a notice on 10.03.2014 issued by Joint Director (R) East /North East for payment of outstanding charges and also threated him disconnect the water and sewar connection in case of non-payment. Again letter dated 11.03.2014 was issued by Zonal Revenue Officer (NE)-I containing same order for payment of outstanding bill. Opposite Party officials visited the premises of the Complainant in the presence of Complainant’s son Dr. V.N. Singh, on its wrong observation/findings as water in the said premises is being used solely for commercial purpose i.e. physiotherapy centre. The Opposite Party issued letter dated 11.03.2014 (Supra) mentioning that the property was not being used for residential purpose and directed to make the payment of demanded amount. Complainant again sent a legal notice to Opposite Party on 28.03.2014. Opposite Party replied the Complainant’s legal notice that there was no residence in the premises in question.Hence, bills were being issued in appropriate category as per approved tariff of Delhi Jal Board.  Complainant filed two complaints dated 06.11.2013 and 05.05.2014 which were subsequently got withdrawn on dated 06.12.2013 and 13.05.2014 respectively. Complainant has prayed for issuing direction to Opposite Party to issue the revised bill treating the connection as mixed used category (Category IA). He has also claimed of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party has raised the objection that Complainant is not a registered consumer of the Opposite Party nor he has been by the authorized consumer. It is alleged that the Complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is time bound. It is stated that the complaint is barred under section 96 of the Delhi Water Board Act 1998. The Opposite Party has denied the averment made in the complaint and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the preliminary objections raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Ms Poonam Vij, working as Zonal Revenue Officer, with the Delhi Jal Board, having office at near Water Tank, G.T. Road, Shahdara, Delhi. It has also filed affidavit of Shri Surender Pal working as Meter Inspector, with the Delhi Jal Board.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard both the parties and we have perused the file. We have also perused the written arguments filed by complainant and Opposite Party.
7. The case of the Complainant is that he is the owner of property no. J1/1411, Vijay Chowk, Opposite Ajanta Budh Vihar Mansarover Park, Delhi. The said property has three floors and water connection has been installed in the name of deceased w/o the Complainant and she has made a registered will of the said property in favour of the Complainant. It is the case of the Complainant that he is the user/consumer of the said water connection. As per the case of Complainant, the ground floor of the said property is being used by his son Dr. V. N Singh for running a Physiotherapy Clinic and the other two floors are being used for domestic purpose. It is his case that no water is required for running the Physiotherapy Clinic. The grievance of the Complainant is that earlier the water bill was being issued on the basis of domestic use tariff. However, later on the bills were being issued on the basis of commercial/industrial category (Category II) tariff. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that the entire building is used for running the Physiotherapy Clinic. It is denied that no water is required for running the Physiotherapy Clinic.
8. Thus the issue to be decided is that whether no water is required for running the Physiotherapy Clinic for that only a part of the ground floor is being used for running the Physiotherapy Clinic by the son of the Complainant and the other portion of the property is being used for the domestic purpose. Vide order dated 24.11.2015, the predecessor Forum appointed Shri. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. as Local Commissioner for ascertaining the actual facts regarding the nature and use of the water in the building. The said advocate visited the premises in question on 01.12.2015 and inspected the premises in the presence of the parties. He submitted in his report that on the ground floor of the property a Physiotherapy Clinic was running and no water was being used for running the clinic. He also submitted in his report that the second floor was being used for residential purpose and the third floor was lying vacant. The Opposite Party filed objection to the Court of the Local Commissioner on the ground that the Local Commissioner visited the premises after one week and thus the Complainant had sufficient time to remove/adjust the water taps in the property in question.
9. The case of the Complainant as discussed above is that the ground floor portion of the property is being used for running Physiotherapy Clinic by his son Dr. V.N Singh and no water is required for running the Physiotherapy Clinic. In order to substantiate his plea the Complainant has relied upon his affidavit and the report of the Local Commissioner. It is important to note that the Complainant has not filed any affidavit of his son Dr. V N Singh who runs the clinic to show that his son does not require any water for running the Physiotherapy Clinic. It is a known fact that Physiotherapists sometime give/apply hot packs to the patients by dipping the towel etc. in the boiling water. Dr. V N Singh did not file any affidavit that he does not follow such practice and he does not require water for running the clinic nor any report of an expert has been filed to show that no water is required for running the Physiotherapy Clinic.
10.  The case of the Complainant is that the other two floors are used for domestic purpose. However, neither in the compliant nor his affidavit the Complainant has not disclosed the manner and nature of the domestic use nor it has been specified by whom it is being used. The Local Commissioner Shri. Rajesh Kumar, Adv has stated that first floor of the property is being used for residential purpose but he has not specified who was residing there. The Local Commissioner has stated in his report that the second floor was vacant whereas the Complainant has stated that the second floor was also being used for domestic purpose. Therefore, in the totality of the above mentioned circumstances no reliance can be placed on the report of the Local Commissioner who has visited the premises after one week of the order whereby he was appointed as the Local Commissioner.
11. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed accordingly.
12. Order announced on 03.11.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President