Delhi

StateCommission

FA/1295/2013

DELHI JAL BOARD - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI MAHILA KALYAN SAMITI - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jul 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

 

Date of Decision: 25.07.2017

 

First Appeal-1295/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the District Forum, M-Block Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in complaint case No. 448/13)

 

 

        In the Matter of:

               

         

 

 Delhi Jal Board

Through Secretary

Varunalaya  Phase-II,

New Delhi-110005          

 

The Zonal Revenue Officer,

Delhi Jal Board,

West-I, Subhash Nagar,

Delhi                                                                         …….Appellant(s)

 

Versus

 

 

Delhi Mahila Kalyan Samiti,

Through Manager,

R/o D-48,

Janakpuri, Industrial Area,

New Delhi                                                                …….Respondent

                     

                                                                                      

            

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

 

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 wherein challenge is made to order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, VI, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 448/13 whereby the aforesaid complaint has been allowed. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under:

        “The Delhi Mahila Kalyan Samiti is a social non profit making institution devoted to training of poor women by training them free of cost and does not earn any profit from any government, nor doing any commercial act for commercial gain. The water used is only for trainees consumption. The Bill of Rs. 1,03,275/-  is on commercial basis. The OP is directed to stop charging the consumption on commercial basis and revised the bill to confirm to appropriate category.

        Order may be given Dasti, as desired.

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

2.             Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that a complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum by respondent/complainant wherein it was alleged that respondent/complainant is a Charitable organization registered under the Societies Registration Act in the year 1976. It was alleged that the main objective of respondent/compainant is to provide training to poor and needy girls, women in different fields and to take care of old people and look after their medical needs. It was alleged that a school is being by respondent/complainant for deserving children. It was alleged that the Organisation is being run on donation basis and no commercial work is carried out there as such the appellant/OP should charge tariff on commercial basis and not at domestic rates. Ld. counsel for appellant/OP has submitted that the Ld. District Forum had decided the matter without giving any opportunity to the respondent/OP to file reply and to lead evidence by way of affidavit. It is submitted that even no evidence was led by the respondent/complainant before the Ld. District Forum. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed without any evidence on record.

3.             Ld. counsel for the appellant/OP has submitted that an inspection was carried out in respect of premises in question and it was found that the school was being run on commercial basis. It is stated that principle of natural justice are violated by the Ld. District Forum as proper opportunity of hearing has not been given to the appellant/OP.

4.             Nothing contrary is pointed out on behalf of respondent/complainant.

5.             Perusal of impugned order shows that the Ld. District Forum has not even discussed the facts of the case. On what basis the conclusion has been arrived by the Ld. District Forum that the respondent/OP is a non-profit institution and that no fee is charged, is not mentioned in the impugned order. Further, no opportunity of leading evidence has been given to the parties.

6.             Accordingly, we accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order and remand back the case to the Ld. District Forum for deciding the same afresh.

7.             The parties shall appear before the Ld. District Forum on 25.08.2017. On the said date, the appellant/OP shall file its written statement and thereafter, the Ld. District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

 

 

 

                A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of charge as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.