Delhi

StateCommission

A/507/2015

GURVEEN KAUR SALUJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI JAL BOARD & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:27.11.2015

First Appeal- 507/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 07.09.2015 passed in Complainant Case No. 44/2015 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (II), Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi)

Gurveen Kaur Saluja,

M-77B, 3^rd Floor,

Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi-110017.

                                                                ….Appellant

Versus

1. Chief Executive Officer,

Office of Delhi Jal Board,

Govt. of NCT of Delhi,

Room No.110, Varunalaya,

Phase-II, Jhandewalan,

Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110055.

 

2. Centre Incharge,

Delhi Jal Board,

Malviya Nagar Branch,

Saket,

New Delhi.

                                                                    ….Respondents

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

OP Gupta, Member(Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) wherein challenge is made to order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(II), , Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi (in short, “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 44/2015.
2. The appellant is represented by her father, Shri S.S. Puri. 
3. The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are as under:

Appellant herein was the complainant before the Ld. District Forum.  A complaint was filed by her before the Ld. District Forum alleging therein that an application for sanction of new water connection at her residence bearing Flat No.M-77B, III Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi was filed by her before respondent/OP on 17.10.14.  The said application was pursued on her behalf by her father.  It was informed to her father that since the outstanding dues were pending against two existing connections in the same property, the new connection would not be sanctioned unless outstanding dues were cleared.  It was alleged that it was a case of new connection and the dues were in respect of other floors and the appellant had nothing to do with said connection of the same building.  However, the respondent/OP did not accept the said position explained by appellant and did not sanction new water connection.

4. The respondent/OP contested the complaint case by filing written statement.
5. During the pendency, the respondent/OP provided water connection to appellant/complainant.  Thereupon the Ld. District Forum passed the following order:

“Case No.44/15

1.  

 

 Present: Father of the Complainant.

Shri Mukesh Gill Adv. along with Sh.     Girdhari Lal, Head Clerk (Revenue) for OP.

 

During the course of arguments at the Bar, father of the complainant has admitted that OP has already provided the water connection in the name of the complainant in the premises in question.  But, however, submission of the father of complainant is that some amount towards damages be also granted to the complainant.  On the other hand, Counsel for the OP has submitted that as soon as the procedure of the clearance of the outstanding dues was cleared, the water connection in the name of the complainant in the premises in question had been installed within seven days.  In view of this fact, we do not think it proper to direct the OP to pay any compensation to the complainant.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.  Copy of this order be given Dasti to the parties.  File be consigned to record room.

 

                                                                                 Sd/-                                Sd/-

    (Member)                          (President)”     

6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.
7. Shri S.S. Puri, father of the appellant has argued that there was delay on the part of the respondent/OP in providing water connection and as such the compensation ought to have been awarded by the Ld. District Forum in favour of the appellant/complainant.  
8. We have considered the submission made and gone through the material on record as well as gone through the relevant notings of OP/respondent filed by the appellant/complainant. The notings on record show that procedure followed had taken some time in clearing the file for sanctioning the connection as some outstanding dues were shown in respect of property in question.    However, considering the notings on record and reasoning given by the Ld. District Forum, we find no illegality committed by the Ld. District Forum in not granting compensation to the appellant/complainant.  Further grant of compensation is the discretion of the Forum.  The discretion has been exercised after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. No case for interference is made out.
10. The appeal is dismissed in limini.
11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

 Member

 

 

(OP Gupta)

Member(Judicial)

       

sa