Delhi

North East

CC/184/2017

Smt. Maya Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Delhi Jal Board - Opp.Party(s)

26 Feb 2021

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. 184/17

 

In the matter of:

	Smt. Maya Bansal R/o:- 1/11211-B, Street no. 11, Subhash Park Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
	Delhi Jal Board Zonal Revenue Office, North East-I G.T. Road, Shahdara Delhi-110032	Opposite Party

 

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

06.06.2017 26.02.2021 26.02.2021

 

Mr. Arun Kumar Arya, President (Addl. Charge)

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

1. Facts in brief recapitulated in the present complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of OP by virtue of holding a domestic water connection vide meter no. 1452440000 provided by OP and installed at her premises since last 30-35 years and the water supply through the said connection goes directly to the overhead tank from which water is also used by complainant’s tenant and his family (staying in the said premises) for domestic usage. The said tenant has a hair cutting saloon shop admeasuring 15-16 sq. yd. in the basement of the said premises for which he uses water from a nearby hand pump installed outside the said shop. But OP sent an illegal show cause notice dated 04.12.2014 to the complainant alleging commercial use of water and to explain why charges for commercial meter should not be levied on him. The complainant vide reply dated 02.01.2015 clarified to OP that water in her premises is used solely for domestic purposes and that her tenant uses water from a nearby hand pump for his saloon and further asked OP to withdraw the said notice. However, OP suddenly after a gap of almost two years sent a bill dated 08.09.2016 for a sum of Rs. 9,415/- to the complainant under Category II (commercial) against which the complainant vide representation dated 28.09.2016 and 28.12.2016 addressed to Deputy Director of OP asked OP to cancel the said bill and restore her connection back to domestic. But OP instead served a notice no. 060 dated 05.10.2016 to the complainant asking her to stop using water for the hair cutting salon and the remove the water connection in it and to inform OP accordingly of compliance. Thereafter, complainant vide series of communications / complaints between November-December 2016 urged OP to withdraw such illegal notices and bills raised under commercial category on grounds that even on inspection by official of OP no tap or water use was found in the basement of complainant’s premises but all pleas fall on deaf ear and OP’s official even tried to provoke complainant’s tenants to use water from complainant’s connection. Further OP vide notice dated 31.01.2017 to complainant refused to change the category of water consumption from commercial to domestic as per order of its ZRO. The complainant made representation dated 03.02.2017 to the Water Minister, Delhi Government about her grievance in this matter but to no avail. Lastly, when the complainant received bill dated 19.04.2017 from OP for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- approx. under commercial category for the period February 2017 to April 2017, the complainant was compelled to file the present complaint against the OP praying for issuance of direction to OP to convert the consumption category from commercial to domestic and to prepare bills in accordance with the domestic category and also sought suitable compensation / damages.
2. Complainant has attached copy of correspondence, copy of notices and copy of bills all between the period 04.12.2014 when the first show cause notice was issued by OP to complainant till 19.04.2017 when the bill of Rs. 28,571/- was raised by OP on complaint under commercial category (CAT II).
3. Notice was issued to the OP on 12.07.2017. OP entered appearance and filed written statement vide which it took the preliminary objection to non-maintainability of the complaint on ground of it being time barred in as much as the complainant is agitating conversion of water connection from domestic to commercial done in 2014 in the year 2017 i.e. beyond the statutory period of two years of filing of the complaint regarding this cause of action. On merits, OP resisted the complaint on grounds that complainant’s premises consists of two floors, in ground floor of which exists a saloon shop in which complainant carries out commercial activity and has been using water supply of OP in it from a water tank which is connected to internal connection of OP and therefore it is false averment made by the complainant that she was not using the water supply provided by OP for commercial purpose and therefore it was justified and correct to raise bills on the complainant under Category II (commercial). OP further submitted that on inspection conducted at complainant’s premises on 31.07.2017, it was found out that commercial activity was being carried out for which water supply of OP was put to use from the connection provided by OP and therefore no conversion of category into domestic connection could be made. For the defence so taken, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Rejoinder in rebuttal to defence taken by OP was filed by the complaint in which she reiterated that her premises are residential and that the water connection of OP is being put to use for domestic consumption only and that her tenant has a separate hair cutting saloon shop for which he uses water from a nearby hand pump and water from OP’s connection has never been used for it. In fact complainant’s tenant had written a letter dated 01.06.2017 to OP stating that he alongwtih his family uses the water for domestic purpose only and not for the saloon which is located in the basement of the premises in the question which even otherwise does not have a tap and asked for reversal of category. The complainant stated that she had got the tank and fitting inside the saloon removed on illegal demand of OP for which damages to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- was also claimed by the complainant from OP vide letter dated 06.12.2017. Complainant stated that there was no inspection by any official of OP on the site of the complainant after January 2015 for next two years and despite letters by complainant to OP dated 25.10.2016 / 05.11.2016 and 18.12.2017, OP kept on raising illegal demand by way of bills and notices dated 18.02.2017, 20.11.2017, 11.12.2017 and 14.12.2017 asking complainant to pay outstanding dues of Rs. 24,000/- vide bill dated 18.02.2017, Rs. 40,000/- vide bill dated 20.10.2017 and Rs. 45,000/- approx. vide bill dated 11.12.2017  towards commercial use of water despite pendency of the present complaint and threatened of disconnection under Regulation 40(a)(i) of Delhi Water & Sewer (Tariff and Metering) Regulation 2012 as well. The complainant attached copies of notices and bills raised by OP in this period of 2017. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application u/s 13(3B) of CPA feeling aggrieved by notices dated 11.12.2017, 14.12.2017, 06.01.2018 & 12.01.2018 issued by ZRO, North East, Shahdara District, Delhi OP demanding payment of outstanding water bill dues failing which water supply would be disconnected as per the Regulation 40(a)(i) of Delhi Water and Sewer (Tariff & Metering) Regulation 2012. The complainant urged in this application that her complaint is sub-judice before this Forum June 2017 but the OP showing scant regard and respect to the order by the Forum even during pendency of proceedings before it, illegally and unconstitutionally issued the said notices pressurizing and threatening the complainant to settle the matter on the term of OP for paying charges levied vide unlawful bills. The complainant protested against the demand notices vide representation to OP dated 18.12.2017 and 17.01.2018 urging OP to refrain from sending such notices and using pressure tactics to extort money and to show respect to this Forum and wait for the outcome / decision in the complaint instead of insulting the Forum for which unbecoming behavior, OP shall be solely responsible for consequences. Complainant therefore prayed for issuance of direction against the OP to punish the OP and take appropriate punitive action against the OP with direction to OP to pay damages to the complainant. OP filed reply to the said application in which it submitted that it is bound by the order of this Forum and submitted that complainant has not paid any water dues for bills raised after November 2015 due to which reason there were mounting arrears and therefore demand letters in question raised on complainant as per law but the complainant neither responded to the demand letters nor paid outstanding dues. OP further urged there was nothing unconstitutional or unlawful in sending the bills or demand letters asking for payments against the same and stated that water connection no. 1452440000 of the complainant has been converted into domestic category i.e. CAT-1 from 18.11.2017 on complainant having removed water tank from the saloon running on rent on her premises at ground floor level which category change was duly intimated to the complainant vide letter no 992 dated 06.01.2018 and lastly urged this Forum to direct the complainant to pay the outstanding dues towards water connection. OP has attached copy of photographs of the saloon running on ground floor of complainant’s premises without water tank attached therewith and copy of bill dated 15.02.2018 of Rs. 59,906/- for the period December 2017 to February 2018 and bill dated 19.09.2019 for the period August 2019 to September 2019 for a sum of  Rs. 1,08,789.62/- with arrears.
5. Having exhaustively discussed the legal proposition and the legislative mandate / intention of drafting Section 13(3B) incorporating same vide amendment to the Act dated 15.03.2003 and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of present case and the relevant time in which the demand notice in question were being sent by OP to complainant while the matter was pending before this Forum, we observed that the matter was procedural from June 2017 till December 2017 for filing of reply and rejoinder and it was during in the said period pertinently December 2017 – January 2018 that the demand notices and disconnection notice was sent by ZRO of OP. Contrary to OP’s submission that post restraint order dated 08.01.2018 passed in presence of its Head Clerk no demand letter was issued to complainant, the complainant had placed on record letter no. 1037 dated 12.01.2018 issued by ZRO-II of OP asking her to produce copy of the Court order allowing her not to pay any bill or in the alternate pay the outstanding dues immediately failing which her water connection can be disconnected. Therefore keeping in view these relevant facts, this Forum after hearing exhaustive arguments from both sides deemed just and proper to grant interim relief to the complainant as and he has established prima facie case warranting and justifying interim relief against the OP for having issued such demand letters during pendency of proceedings and despite restraint order and directed OP to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant for harassment and mental torture which the complainant underwent due to such notices. The said order was complied with by OP and cost was paid to complainant in hearing held on 05.11.2019 and on the subsequent date of hearing i.e. 10.01.2020, OP represented through its AR as well as counsel made a statement it has given a complete rebate to the complainant vide latest bill raised on 12.12.2019 which has been raised for sum “zero” with no outstanding dues as per the prevailing scheme and the consumer category has also been converted back to category 1 (domestic) from 18.11.2017. The same was admitted by the complainant as well. However, the complainant prayed for compensation alleging harassment for last almost two years starting from 2015 till end of 2016 and beginning of 2017 compelling her to file the present complaint in June 2017 when for all these years the complainant kept agitating her grievance with OP regarding reversal of consumer category from commercial to domestic but OP even despite and during the pendency of the complaint, kept sending letters and notices threatening disconnection of water supply between the period November 2017 to January 2018 to the complainant despite restraint order dated 08.01.2018 and 02.02.2018 passed by this Forum against OP from taking any coercive action or exercise any pressure tactics on the complainant given her senior citizen status and the matter being sub-judice. The complainant had also moved an application u/s 13(3B) due to facing continuous threats, bills and notices from OP and this Forum had restrained the OP vide order dated 28.05.2018 from adopting any coercive or high handed tactics against the complainant and the said order was passed in the presence of OP’s head clerk.
6. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both parties exhibiting documents relied upon.
7. We have heard the rival contentions of both parties and have bestowed our anxious consideration to the arguments forwarded by both sides on the aspect of compensation.
8. Compensation is for vindicating the strength of law and acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. It helps in curing social evil and aims at improving work culture and changing the outlook of officer/public servant and discourages arrogation of power in arbitrary manner. Hon'ble National Commission in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs Yogesh Chandragupta in RP No. 128/2000 decided on 06.12.2004 held that where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non-exercise of power by an officer of the authority, the commission / Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation.  

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indochem Electronic Vs Addl. Collector of Customs (2006) 3 SCC 721 held that deficiency in service is must to award compensation and such deficiency must manifest itself for entitling complainant to compensation.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Landmark judgment of Charan Singh Vs Healing Touch Hospital AIR 2000 SC 3138 observed that while quantifying damages, consumer Forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual but also aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of service provider. Indeed no hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application / calculation of damages but relevant factors be taken into a count for assessing compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles or moderation. It is for the consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to the established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge. 

 In the present case after due appreciation of the facts and documentary evidence placed on record and pleadings filed before us, we have observed that the for the entire period of twoyears from December 2014 when OP first sent a show cause notice to the complainant to explain why her water connection should not be converted from domestic to commercial till December 2016 when the complainant had raised his grievance with the Water Minister, Delhi Government, the complainant kept agitating her grievance with OP against arbitrary conversion and allegation of water consumption for commercial purpose and bills raised under commercial category by OP vide series of correspondence from January 2015 till November 2016 wherein complainant kept urging for regularization of bills under domestic category but the request was declined by OP vide communicated dated 31.01.2017 taking the plea of using a salon shop with water tank installed in the said shop. Even during the pendency of the complaint, OP kept sending notices and bills for the period of late 2017-beginning 2018 threatening disconnection and bills under commercial category. By OP’s own admission the category was converted back to Category I (domestic) from Category II (Commercial) on 18.11.2017 (on inspection) during the pendency of the complaint and eventually the last bill dated December 2019 was made as Zero under the rebate scheme with all previous bills waived off. But no such inspection report was ever filed by OP before this Forum. After thorough appreciation of chronology of developments in the light of correspondence placed on record before us, we have no hesitation in concluding that the complainant who is a senior citizen was put to undue harassment and pressure continuously for a period of two years preceding filing of the present complaint and even earlier and because the grievance was not redressed by OP and instead the consumer category was changed arbitrarily without any explanation given and sought and exorbitant bills were raised on the complainant who was also threatened with disconnection of water supply. There has been a gross negligence and deficiency of service writ large on the part of OP on all such accounts which is a stark example of deficiency in service for which inefficiency complainant cannot be made to suffer. The MRTP Commission in Niranjan Singh Vs Delhi Water Supply and Sewerage (2001) 3 CPJ 999 (MRTPC) held in a case in regard of bills raised with respect to water connection under domestic category which was converted into commercial category on the basis of plea taken that on inspection of premises, business activity was found being carried on but no such inspection report was filed that imposing unjustified cost on consumer by manipulating condition of providing services by virtue of its position in market distorted competition and OP was directed to modify bill in question by charging rates applicable to domestic connection and cease and desist order was also passed. Therefore, applying the ratio in the aforementioned judgment squarely applicable to the present case, we deem it as a fit case for grant of compensation to the complainant. We therefore allow the present complaint limiting the relief to the extent of compensation since grievance pertaining to bills and conversion of category of use has already been addressed by the OP and accordingly direct OP to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant towards harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant for all these years due to non redressal of her grievance regarding bills and demand notices and conversion of consumer category. The same would be meet the ends of justice. Let the order be complied with by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

9.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per Regulation             21 (1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10.   File be consigned to record room.
11.   Announced on  26.02.2021

(Arun Kumar Arya) President(Addl.Charge)

(Sonica Mehrotra)                    Member