Delhi

North East

CC/314/2014

Sanjeev Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Delhi Jal Board - Opp.Party(s)

-

19 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 314/2014

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sanjeev Kumar 429-E, Rajiv Gandhi, Gali No. 7, East Babarpur, Delhi 110032	Complainant
	Versus
	Chairman Delhi Jal Board Govt of NCT of Delhi Varunalay, Phase-II, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005	Opposite Parties

 

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

21.08.2014 19.03.2018 19.04.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

 

ORDER

1. The case of the complainant is that the OP has accepted the complainant as consumer in complaint case no. 224/13 on 07.08.2013 beforet his Forum with specification that he is a consumer of OP w.e.f. 4.6.13 but the OP has declined to recognize the complainant as consumer thereafter and as such this is contempt of this Forum. Further the complainant has stated that despite the above orders the OP is still sending water consumption bills in the name of Smt. Chanda Devi for reasons / conspiracy best known to OP and there is no calculation detail mentioned in water bill. Further, it has been stated by complainant that the scheduled  timing of water supply is from 06:00 a.m. to 08:00 a.m. and 06:00 p.m. to 08:00 p.m. but OP has not yet fixed the time of water supply in the street of the complainant and the OP is continuing its unfair trade practice Further, the complainant has stated that despite the complainant having given his correct address in application form for mutation to OP on 7.6.2012, the same has not yet been corrected by OP in its record. Keeping in view above, complainant has claimed relief to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- for mental and physical harassment caused by OP for the last 14 months. He has cited the version/ reply given by OP in response of his various applications under RTI Act. He had also stated that since the bills are being sent by OP in the name of Smt. Chanda Devi, the same should be recovered by OP from Smt. Chanda Devi but not from complainant. Further it has been stated that if OP is accepting complainant as consumer of OP, he is admittedly using water of OP since 16.12.1994 and therefore, OP should refund the sewer charges taken from him since 19.01.2009. Further, complainant has submitted that OP had accepted that the complainant had not been given any sewer connection  and that there is no notification for the sewer in the area of complaiant as per OP whereas onthe contrary OP had issued the notification for sewer on 10.05.2010 but this notification was not made available to complainant and the rebate of 20% was also not given to complainant. Further, complainant alleged that OP itself admitted vide RTI reply that no sewer connection was given to complainant. Complainant also alleged that meter rent was also charged from complainant whereas the same was not taken from other consumers as accepted by OP in RTI response. It addition, the complainant has stated that due to severe heat, he had to suffer from dehydration and was admitted in Tirath Ram Hospital where he had to spend Rs. 12,000/- appx and his  physical health also deteriorated. If the OP had resolved the problem initially, this would not have happened. Further the complainant attached a copy of the order dated 07.08.2013 in complaint case no.  224/13 wherein this Forum had decided that the complainant was the consumer from 4.6.13 onwards and earlier Smt. Chanda Devi was the consumer and an amount of Rs. 33.55p as sewer inspection charges vide bill no. 873900 dated 18.04.2012 were charged from her. He has also attached copies of OP water bills dated 08.01.2014 wherein name of Smt. Chanda Devi is mentioned with address 429/6 East Baburpur, Shahdara, Delhi amounting to Rs. 490/-. A copy of other bills dated 19.02.2014, 23.04.2014, 25.06.2014 in the name of Smt. Chanda Devi at the above-mentioned address amounting to Rs. 559/-, 643/- & Rs. 889/- respectively, have also been submitted. A copy of RTI information from OP has been attached stating that there is no notification of sewer in the area and no sewer connection has been given. Further, time of supply of water is from 06:00 a.m. to 08:00 a.m. and 06:00 p.m. to 08:00 p.m. and this has been mentioned in reply of RTI. A copy of application form for mutation in respect of  K.No. 1512340000 for transferring the name from Ms. Chanda Devi to the name of complainant at the address 429-E Rajiv Gandhi Gali No. 7, East Babarpur, Delhi-110032 dated 1.6.2013 has also been submitted. A copy of another reply received under RTI dated 9.7.2014 by the complainant indicates that the consumer of bill no. 15123615375 and 151234573877 is Smt. Chanda Devi but thereafter, the name has been changed to Shri Sanjeev Kumar. Further it has been clarified that the consumer, who is using the water, is responsible to pay the bill. Further, the complainant has submitted a copy of complaint letter dated 30.07.2014 addressed to OP wherein he has pointed out different points/ grievances being suffered by him and it has been stated that in case no solution is found by the OP, the applicant shall be liable to go to consumer court. Vide RTI information dated 9.7.2014 it was clarified that complainant was updated in records of OP for future billing purposes. Another information under RTI Act given by OP indicates that as per office record water connection was given to building / residence on 16.12.94. And the sewer maintenance charges shall be adjusted in the forthcoming bills and the sewer charges has been levied from his bill on 19.1.2009. A copy of public notice issued by OP has been submitted by complainant, wherein it is indicated that Chhajjupura, Shahdara is the colony where internal sewerage system has been completed and made functional for collection, removal and disposal of all the filthy polluted and obnoxious material from latrine urinal and cess pools. Further it has been stated that the applicant has to deposit sewer development charges @ Rs. 100/- per sqm of plotted area and the rebate of 20% will be given to those plot holders, who deposit sewer development charges in lumpsum within a period of three months  from the date of notification etc. A copy of corrigendum to public notice dated 10.05.2010 has been attached wherein it is mentioned that the earlier notification for Chhajjupura Shahdara shall be read as Chhajjupur and East Babarpur, Shahdara and date of notification shall be read as date of corrigendum to public notice dated 10.05.10 for East  Babarpur only. A copy of information received from OP dated 19.12.2012 has been attached wherein it has been indicated that meter of the  consumer is changed if it is defective and meter security is taken from the consumer. Further the consumer is charged Rs. 10/- per month as meter rent. A copy of OP water bill dated 27.10.2012 has been attached wherein smt. Chanda Devi has been charged Rs. 49/- as meter rent but in another water bill of OP at different address it is shown that no meter rent has been charged. The complainant has also enclosed a copy of Aadhar Card wherein his residential address has been mentioned as 429-E, Rajiv Gali No. 7, East Babarpur, Shahdara and it is dated 17.07.11. Further a copy of bill amounting to Rs. 11,370/- for the period of his hospitalization at Tirath Ram Shah Charitable Hospital due to dehydration has also been attached wherein the complainant remained admitted from 28.06.2014 to 01.07.2014 under medicine specialist due to trauma caused by the OP.
2. Counsel for OP submitted in the reply that one water connection no. 70136 (New K.No. 1512340000) is existing at property no. 429/6, East Babarpur and the complaint relates to the bills for above water connection are not being sent in the name of complainant despite the complainant having mutuated the connection in his name. It was submitted that water connection was previously running in the name of Smt. Chanda Devi and the complainant had got his water connection mutated in his name in 2013 but due to technical problem in billing system which was started in 2012 as Revenue Management System (totally computerized), all cases of mutations showed the name of the previous consumers. The fault was rectified later on in all such cases which came to OP notice or where the application was made. In this case too, mutation was reverted back in the name of previous consumer, which later on, after receiving the complaint was corrected in the system in the name of the complainant and information was given to him accordingly and now the bill is being sent in the name of complainant Shri Sanjeev Kumar. Further, it was submitted that ownership keeps changing but water connection No. K.No. which is a unique no. does not change and water charges payment is deposited against K.No. in every bill. Hence, questi9on of harassment does not arise. Further, the schedule of rates of water charges is already available on OP website and the water  supply time is fixed for the whole area and not for a gali particularly. In addition, the mutation form is filled up for the purpose of mutation only and for connection and change of address, the consumer has to apply separately with sufficient documentary evidence for the purpose. A copy of bill dated 11.10.2014 in the name of complainant at his given address was also attached. The complainant submitted an application dated 24.11.14 stated as rejoinder, wherein the complainant expressed his inability to appear on the date of hearing and stated that the OP is sending the water bills in the name of previous consumer and sewer charges are being charged without sewer connection. Further the meter rent is being charged from complainant but not from other consumers and in addition deprivation of complainant from sewer notification benefits.
3. The complainant submitted in his affidavit of evidence dated 17.12.2014 that OP had not yet corrected his address in the bill and further questioned the OP that if he was the consumer from 04.06.2013, why the bills are still being sent by OP in the name of Chanda Devi? Further, the address was to be corrected as the complainant had submitted the necessary documents in Seelampur office of the OP but the same was not done. The OP submitted in its evidence dated 16.03.2015 that OP is statutory body under Article 12 of constitution of India and is engaged in providing potable water and maintenance of sewerage in Delhi. Further, the points mentioned in the written statement dated 01.10.2014 regarding the technical problem in their billing system, wherein the name of previous consumer was mentioned instead of new consumer as per mutation due to technical problem and other points regarding the address etc were reiterated. OP further stated that the complainant himself had admitted to having been using water since 16.12.1994 and no harassment has been caused to him by OP.
4. The written arguments of the OP dated 20.01.2016 stated that the OP is the statutory body and comes within the definition of state under article 12 of the constitution of India and engaged in providing potable water and maintenance of sewerage in Delhi and the complaint is not being filed by the complainant properly and is not supported by proper affidavit and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further, the OP is providing the water supply from neighbouring states and the supply is dependent upon availability. The water connection no. 30136/New K.No 1502540000 is existing at Property No. 429/06 East Babarpur. Further the OP mentioned in the evidence as well as in written statement regarding the incorrect name and address of the complainant which were rectified. Further, it was submitted that the complainant had not approached the officials of OP for the redressal of his grievance as alleged by him. Further, it was submitted that present bills are being generated through HHD devise in entire Delhi as per policy and bills are delivered immediately after generating and it is not possible to give details of the bills which are generated through HHD and as far as calculation schedule of rate is concerned, it is already available on OP website. Further, the OP submitted that connection no. 151234000 was changed to the name of complainant on 10.06.2013 and sewer maintenance charges amounting to Rs. 307/- have already been cancelled on 07.02.2013 and the rebate of Rs. 624/- has been deducted from the bill on 06.06.2013. It has also been stated that the consumer has not yet paid the water charges till today. The documentary proof to this effect has been attached with the above application. It has also been submitted that the old bill of Rs. 2820/-has been revised to Rs. 263/-. The summary of all round from legacy and the consumer summary from RMS has also been attached. Further, the copy of bill dated 10.06.2013, 24.12.2015 and 29.02.2016 in the name of the complainant has been attached with the correct address of the complainant being 429/E, Rajeev Gali No. 7, East Babarpur, Delhi duly mentioned. OP filed bills dated June 2013, Decembere 2015 & Feb. 2016 generated in the name of complainant.
5. The written arguments of the complainant dated 07.02.2018 have stated that OP had accepted that sewer connections have not given in the area of complainant and the sewer charges is being charged from 19.1.2009. Further, the OP has intimated an amount of Rs. 33.50p as sewer charges but in the RTI, it has been stated athat Rs. 307/- have been charged. However, the OP had not stated the total amount charged from the complainant as sewer charges. Further, the OP stated that notification of sewer has not been issued in the area of complainant but OP had issued the notification on 10.05.2010 and the benefit of 20% rebate in the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq mtr has not been given to the complainant. In addition, the OP has not clarified as to why the name of other person is being mentioned in water bills of complainant and how such sewer charges have been adjusted in the bill of complainant. Further, the OP has sent the bill dated 25.06.2014 in the name of Ms. Chanda Devi. In addition, the OP has violated the order dated 11.06.14 of the CIC wherein OP was given a period of 15 days to do needful action but the same was not done. A copy of the water bill dated 25.06.2014, showing the name of Smt. Chanda Devi with the previous address 429/6 East Babarpur has been attached alongwith a response from OP to the complainant that bill has been corrected in the name of complainant instead of Smt. Chanda Devi. A copy of order dated 11.06.2014 from CIC has been attached which indicates that during the hearing the complainant submitted that the bills from OP come in the name of some other person than him and he wanted to know that who will have to pay the cost if the bills are not addressed to him but were delivered at his address. The OP submitted that if the complainant approaches them with necessary documents for mutation such as title deed etc, the matter can be sorted out and the CIC further advised the complainant to do the needful as suggested by the OP within 15 days of the receipt of this order. In this regard, it is emphasized that the CIC had directed the complainant to do the needful as suggested by OP within 15 days of the receipt of this order that is to approach OP with necessary documents for mutation such as title deed etc to sort out the matter and there was no direction to OP as stated by the complainant to do the needful within 15 days. OP relied upon judgement of Hon’ble SCDRC in complaint no. 190/2010 in which complainant had sought compensation of Rs. 94,86,000/- from OP on the grievance that the water supply was stopped w.e.f. 16.02.2008 (AN) till morning of 29.03.2008 without prior notice and the complainant had to purchase water due to which the fundamental right was snatched. Further it was complained that from 25.03.2008 evening till morning of 29.03.2008 dirty faul smelling water at high pressure was supplied to his residence which entered the basement of his house causing damage to it and endangering the safety of entire house. The value of house had gone down and because of bad smell the basement cannot be used and expenses and labour had to be put it to clean the same. Thus, the OP had committed crime and in liable to make arrangements and compensate for the less caused. Hon’ble SCDRC had ordered that for the allegation of the claim of deprivation of fundamental right SCDRC is not the Forum for the purpose. The other grievance of supply of dirty and smelling water at high pressure from 25.03.2008 evening till 29.03.2008 morning, entering basement and permanently causing damage and depreciation in value of the house, the the complainant spending Rs. 12,000/-, it is worth consideration that the complainant had not placed on record any material or expert report regarding depreciation in value or strength of the house getting down and that too on a/c of water supply allegedly at high pressure for three and half days. Accordingly, the claims made in this regard are far fetched and have apparently been made to invoke jurisdiction of SCDRC. Moreover, the case of unfair trade practices is not made out and the complaint cannot be proceeded with and therefore rejected. In the present case as per the latest bill filed by the OP in the name of complainant at his given address dated 21.12.2017, the same is raised at “ZERO VALUE / NO ARREARS”. OP has submitted that no sewer charges have been levied by OP on the complainant. Therefore, no amount is payable by complainant towards OP vide the present bill as on date.
6. Keeping in view all the above factors, we have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the documentary evidence submitted by the complainant as well as OP in support of their respective claims and defence and we find that complainant has not fully succeeded in the establishment of all the alleged charges against OP in terms of sewer charges claimed and bills raised in the name of Smt. Chanda Devi as in due course of time and during the pendency of the present proceedings, both the grievances of the complainant have been addressed / redressed by the OP. The OP had corrected his name in the bills against the name of previous consumer and had also adjusted the sewer charges taken from the consumer earlier. However, the fact can not be ignored that the complainant was made to run from pillar to post for name change despite mutation application submission and was given misleading / incorrect information regarding sewer connection in his locality, water meter charges taken from complainant, sewer maintenance charges levied / not levied due to contradictory information issued by officials of OP in public notice, RTI and correspondence with complainant and the complainant had to therefore, seek requisite information through RTI because of lack of proper response and correct information by the officials of OP. Further, the address as desired by complainant has not been modified and the OP had sent the bills to complainant even after the mutation in the name of previous owner which is deficiency in service whether it was due to technical snag or any other reason but the consumer / complainant was harassed nonetheless. Accordingly, we award a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses payable to complainant by the OP within the 30 days of receipt of this order. The complaint is allowed accordingly.
7.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8.   File be consigned to record room.
9. Announced on  19.04.2018   

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member