Delhi

StateCommission

A/100/2016

OM PRAKASH BHATIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

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

                                                                    Date of Arguments: 08.08.17

          Date of Decision:     18.08.17

First Appeal No. 100/2016

 

In the matter of:

Shri Om Prakash Bhatia

s/o Late G.R.Bhatia

R/o Flat No. I-297

DDA Flats, Naraina Vihar

Ashok Niketan near PVR Cinema

New Delhi-28.                                                                                                ……Appellant 

                                                           

VERSUS

 

1. Delhi Jal Board

Through Director Revenue concerned

Varunalaya Building

Jhandewalan,

New Delhi.

 

2. Delhi Jal Board(S/W)

Through Director Revenue concerned

Varunalaya Building

Jhandewalan, New Delhi.                                                     …….Respondents

                                                           

CORAM

 

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

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

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

  SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA (MEMBER)

 

JUDGEMENT

          Decree holder has come in the present execution appeal against order dated 30.07.15 passed by District Forum No. VII in Execution No. 575/13.  It is necessary to give a brief resume of the facts to appreciate the controversy in the matter. The appellant filed complaint case No. 253/09 complaining about non-supply of water in his flat since Jan., 2005. Employees of OP visited flat of the complainant on 06.08.08 and were apprised of illegally installed electric motor and tubewell by other occupants of different flats.  The OP drew heavy amount bill while it did not supply water at all to the complainant.  Premises of the complainant is situated on second floor and he has not installed any electric motor to draw water from pipe line installed by OP.  Pipeline installed by OP has become rotten and unfunctional.  Occupants of ground floor, Ist floor  have installed electric motor to bring pressure of water which is illegal.  Owner of flat No. 285-I on the back of complainant’s flat has installed tubewell in the ground area.  Hence he filed a complaint for refund of the bill. The complaint was dismissed vide order dated 25.06.11.

2.       In appeal  filed by complainant and registered as FA 392/11, the order of the District Forum was set aside vide order dated 08.07.13.  OP was directed to undertake necessary steps to rectify the problem of complainant and pay Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

3.       Complainant filed execution of the above order.  The respondent/ JD filed a reply stating that it sent cheque dated 15.10.13 in favour  of the decree holder and same was sent to the residence of decree holder.  The house of the decree holder was found locked.  Thereafter cheque was sent through speed post vide letter dated 17.10.13 and record shows that same was delivered on 19.10.13.

4.       Vide impugned order the District Forum found that JD has filed copies of documents dated 28.07.15 from Hariniketan Residents Welfare Association regarding getting water supply in the locality.

5.       During arguments in appeal the decree holder who is an advocate appeared in person and argued that said association was fictitious association and JD obtained writing on false letter head of said association. The argument is not swallowable.  JD had no motive to go to that extent.

6.       The other plea of the appellant is that water pipe line had not been changed and so local investigation should have been got done to know whether the same has been changed or not.

7.       Counsel for the respondent/JD submitted that it filed affidavit of Shri Devender, Executive Engineer CW-II regarding restoration of water supply, it also filed copy of work order dated 26.09.13 to show that work of changing pipeline was awarded, the same was done and payment was made. It also filed confirmation from neighbourers to show restoration of water supply , confirmation from residents welfare association to the same effect.  We feel that same is sufficient.

8.       Rs. 10,000/- awarded as compensation by this Commission in earlier appeal has admittedly been received by the appellant/decree holder. Thus the District Forum concluded and rightly so that execution petition did not survive.  We do not find any infirmity in the said order.  Counsel for JD also submitted that perusal of the order of State Commission in previous appeal shows that complainant simply prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- towards refund of water  bills alongwith interest, replacement of meter and also compensation for physical and mental harassment. That was all. There was no prayer regarding supply of water.  In execution the relief cannot exceed one claimed in original complaint.  Arguments appears to be justified.

9.       Counsel for the JD also submitted that it is a matter of common knowledge that pressure of water supply through out Delhi is low.  It does not reach the second floor and third floor.   It is not decree holder alone who is not getting water on second floor. It is a general problem. Solution of the problem is construction of water tank under the ground, store water in it and then lift it with the help of electric motor. Again the arguments appears to be attractive.

10.     Appeal is dismissed.

          Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

          Record of District Forum be returned with copy of this order.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                    (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                             MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

 

 

sbm