DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.113/2008

SHRI RAJESH KUNAL KESARI

FOR SHRI PATO RAM

D-13-A, LAJPAT NAGAR-II,

NEW DELHI-110024                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

ZONAL REVENUE OFFICER (W)-II,

DELHI JAL BOARD,

JAL SADAN, JAL VIHAR

LAJPAT NAGAR,

NEW DELHI-110024.                                              ….Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution      :      09.04.2008      Date of Order    :     18.11.2017

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

The main prayers of the complainant are that the OP be directed to prepare a revised & correct bill in respect of water connection No. 462 (342/A-11) for the last entire period installed in the ground floor of the complainant; to adjust the amount paid by the complainant and excess amount may be directed to be refunded to the complainant; an amount of Rs. 60,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant for deficiency of services, mental agony, harassment and pain and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- be also awarded in favour of complainant and against the OP towards litigation costs.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased the property in question from Shri Pato Ram, owner of the flat in the year 1998. The complainant is engaged in the business of jewellery in the name and style of “M/s Raj Ratna Jewellers” at the above address. The premises have four flats i.e. basement, ground, first and second floor with their respective owners having separate water connections and shop of the complainant is at the ground floor. The meter reader never visited the premises and bill sent by the OP reflects ‘meter locked’ while during the normal working hour the shop of the complainant is open. It is submitted that per day water consumption of the complainant cannot and does not exceed more than 100 liter as no manufacturing activity is carried in the premises in possession of the complainant. Therefore, the average water consumption cannot exceed 3 kilo ltr./ pm in the premises of the complainant. It is submitted that from the very beginning when the complainant purchased property in question the meter in question was defective which never worked properly despite various oral complaints made to the OP. It is the bounden duty of the OP to replace/ change the defective meter; the OP is duty bound to send correct bills so that the complainant could pay the same. When the OP did not change the meter, on 09.09.2005 the complainant on his own got replaced the defective meter from authorised / approved dealer of the OP and also duly intimated the OP under their seal and signature but nothing fruitful came out and meter reading was not rectified by the OP. Due to threat of disconnection of the meter and under compulsion, the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,676/- against the wrong billing and defective meter, while the total bill of the complainant cannot go beyond more than Rs. 5000/- from the day the complainant had purchased the shop in question. Due to defective meter the complainant faced extreme difficulty, mental agony harassment. It is clear that OP is not interested in settling petty matter out of court.

          OP in its reply has inter-alia stated that water connection No. 462(342-A-11) is not installed in the name of the complainant. The details of the water connection in the building are as under:-

It is denied that all the floors had separate water connection. The first connection was installed as No. 462 before 1980 and the same catered the water need for entire building for around 15 years. This meter was not functional and hence average consumption @ 36 KL was fixed on the basis of previous consumption. Though the meter was replaced on 21.09.2005 but it stopped again. Again the meter was replaced on 18.12.2006 and since then the bills are given on actual reading basis. It is submitted that no complaint was made to replace the meter as it is the duty of the individual to replace its own defective meter as the replacement by Delhi Jal Board depends on the position of the stock. Non-payment of dues would have lead to the disconnection. The bills were raised as per the previous consumption as the meter was not working. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement of the OPs.         

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Sohan Pal, Zonal Revenue Officer, South-II has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

          Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

          We have heard the OP and have also gone through the file very carefully.

          OP has filed the bill dated 18.06.2017. We mark it as Mark-A for the purposes of identification. Total amount of bill is Rs.2,94,731/- and the OP has given rebate of Rs.1,15,287/-. The net amount to be paid is Rs.1,79,444/-. It is evident from the record that the complainant has not deposited the said amount with the OP. As per the averments made in the compliant which are not disputed by the OP the complainant had once deposited an amount of Rs.25,676/- with the OP. The complainant himself has stated in the complainant that he had not made the payment because no proper bill was received. On perusal of the OPs bill dated 18.06.2017, the bill is in the name of Shri Pato Ram and is not in the name of the complainant. Even otherwise complaint is vague in material particulars and does not contain specific allegations. Hence, we are of the view that the compliant does not disclose any cause of action. Whether the billing on previous reading done by the OP was proper or infact the complainant could not have used water for more than Rs. 5,000/- till the date of filing of the complaint requires recording of evidence which would naturally imply oral examination, cross- examination of witnesses and scrutiny of documents. Hence, no case of deficiency in service is made out.

In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 18.11.2017.