Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/448

AKSHAY GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DJB - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

Date of Decision: 26.04.2016

First Appeal No. 448/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 25.04.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 363/2010 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum (Central) Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006)

 

In the matter of:

Akshay Goel                                                             

S/o Sh. O.P.Goel

A-681, Shastri Nagar

Delhi-110052                                                      ………….Appellant

         

•  

Delhi Jal Board                                                     

H.O.Varunalaya

Jhandewalan

Delhi-110055

Through its Chief Executive Officer/

Zonal Revenue Officer/In-charge Computer Cell       …..………Respondent

 

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK              -        MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?               Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                            Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Judgment

1. This order shall dispose of the Appeal preferred by the Appellant Sh. Akshay Goel against the Respondent Delhi Jal Board.  Appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘Complainant’ and the respondent as ‘Delhi Jal Board’.
2. Complainant has impugned the orders dated 25.04.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum (Central) Kashmere Gate Delhi – 110 006.  Vide said orders the complaint filed by the complainant in the District Forum was dismissed.
3. Facts of the complaint which are not in dispute are that the house bearing no. A-681, Shastri Nagar, Delhi – 110 052 was initially owned by one Smt. Harjinder Kaur.  It was purchased by the complainant Sh. Akshay Goel somewhere in the year 2008.  Water connection for commercial purposes stood issued in the name of Smt. Harjinder Kaur, bearing no. 12928 with K. No. 1098941080.  After purchase of the premises, complainant applied for mutation of the water connection in his name.  Admittedly an amount of Rs. 3996/- was paid by the complainant to Delhi Jal Board vide receipt no. 607036 dated 02.07.2008.  Complainant contended in his complaint that Delhi Jal Board did not raise any bill after 02.07.2008 and the first bill which he received was for the period from 07.01.2010 to 07.04.2010 for an amount of Rs. 21241/-.  Complainant submitted that the said bill showed a previous balance of Rs. 20241/-.  He went to Zonal Revenue Officer of Delhi Jal Board where he was assured adjustment of the aforesaid paid amount.  Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned here that the complainant did not specify as to for which payment he was seeking adjustment.  The only payment made by the complainant was for the amount of Rs. 3996/- for which receipt dated 02.07.2008 stood issued to him. 
4. Next submission of the complainant is that he filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2010 through his brother, in response to which Delhi Jal Board admitted a mistake of its computer cell.  Complainant submitted that the computer cell of Delhi Jal Board was asked to rectify the error by the Zonal Officer vide dispatch no. 1439 dated 15.06.2010.  Complainant has placed on record the copy of the said RTI reply dated 11.08.2010.
5. Next contention of the complainant is that Delhi Jal Board raised another bill for the period from 07.01.2010 to 11.07.2010 for an amount of Rs. 14271/- again after showing a balance of Rs. 17582/-.  It may be clarified here that despite a balance amount of Rs. 17582/-, the bill showed an amount of Rs, 14271/- after Delhi Jal Board gave a discount (90% surcharge rebate) to all its customers and a discount to the tune of Rs. 5906/- in the case of the present complaint.  Complainant submitted that he again went to the Zonal Revenue Officer who did not pay any attention to his request.  On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, complainant made a prayer for directing Delhi Jal Board to correct the water bill after adjusting the amount paid by him till date.  Compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- and litigation charges of Rs. 12000/- were also prayed for.
6. Defense raised by Delhi Jal Board before the District Forum was that as on 12.11.2007, an amount of Rs. 7206/- was outstanding against the previous owner Smt. Harjinder Kaur. After giving a rebate of Rs. 3244/- and after adjusting the payment of Rs. 666/- (already paid), amount of Rs. 3296/- was chargeable.  As on 07.01.2010, an amount of Rs. 20041/- was outstanding against the said water meter. 
7. Ld. District Forum took into account all the calculations and observed as under:-

“The complainant made the payment of Rs. 3996/- on 02.07.2008, vide receipt No. 607036.  According to DJB that payment was upto the period 12.11.2007.  The DJB has raised the demand of water charges after the period of payment of Rs. 3996/-. It is admitted case of the DJB that the bill of the amount of Rs. 22078/- was wrongly issued.  Later on, it corrected the bill and issued bill for the payment of 14985/-.  In that bill, the complainant was given rebate of Rs. 5906/-.  The paid bill of Rs. 3461/- was shown while demanding a sum of Rs. 17582/-.  The amount of Rs. 3996/- was not to be adjusted in the bill, which was raised for water charges prior the period of payment of that amount on 02.07.2008, paid vide receipt no. 607036.  Required rebate/adjustment in the bill, have been granted”. 

The computer cell might have committed an error by not showing the adjustment of Rs. 3996/- yet in the bill dated 08.11.2010, the DJB has not claimed any amount for water charges for the period prior to 02.08.2007.

8. On the basis of the abovesaid observations, Delhi Jal Board was held ‘not deficient in service’.  It was also observed by the Ld. District Forum that the complainant was never asked to make any payment for the consumption of water for which he had already made payment.  In other words, charges have never been erroneously asked for, twice.  In his present appeal, the complainant reiterated the facts of the complaint and simply stated that the bill for the amount of Rs. 22078/- was wrongly issued.  The complainant reiterated that a rebate of Rs. 5906/- was also given to him.  Bill was revised to Rs. 14985/-.
9. Complainant’s case is that after the payment of an amount of Rs. 3996/- at the time of mutation (of the property) on 02.07.2008, he first received the bill for an amount of Rs, 21241/-.  During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for the complainant inadvertently placed before this commission a bill dated 08.03.2010, payable by 23.03.2010 showing the bill amount as Rs. 19087/-.  The said bill is exhibited as Ex. CW-1, at the time of dictating these orders.  This bill contradicts the stand of the complainant that Delhi Jal Board did not raise any bill prior to the bill in question i.e. the bill for an amount of Rs, 21241/-.  It clearly goes to show that the complainant had been receiving the bills regularly which he did not pay and came up with a false plea that no bill was raised by Delhi Jal Board during this span of two years.  It may be mentioned here that as per practice followed by Delhi Jal Board and as stated by its Counsel, Delhi Jal Board retains a computer record of the bills and the statement of accounts in its electronic record while it tenders to its customers the hard copies of the bills.  It is not the case of the complainant that he made payment of any amount after paying the amount of Rs. 3996/- on 02.07.2008.  Complainant has also not pointed out as to which payment made by its predecessor i.e. Smt. Harjinder Kaur has remained unaccounted.  During the course of arguments, the brother of the complainant Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain stated that the amount of Rs. 3996/- too was taken by them from said Smt. Harjinder Kaur and paid to Delhi Jal Board.  Be that as it may, in a period of 8 years, no payment of any bill has been made by the complainant to Delhi Jal Board.  As on 22.08.2014, an amount of Rs. 59941/- was outstanding against the complainant.  Water connection was disconnected by Delhi Jal Board on 11.08.2014.  Complainant with impunity did not make payment of any bill.  This is a case of gross misuse of the service of Delhi Jal Board and the process of courts.  It is a matter of common knowledge that water is in scarcity now-a-days.  ‘Water is Life’, so goes the adage.  How can any government functionary provide services to bonafide customers when some consumers with dishonesty avail of the services for several years without paying any charges. Complainant in the present case has filed a false affidavit stating that he did not receive any bill in a span of two years. As referred to above, the complainant concealed from the court, the bill exhibit CW1 alongwith other bills for the said period of two years. Apex Court in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. Vs. Nirmala Devi & Ors., V (2011) SLT 196 observed as under:

“It is also a matter of common experience that once an ad interim injunction is granted, the plaintiff or the petitioner would make all efforts to ensure that injunction continues indefinitely. The other appropriate order can be to limit the life of the ex-parte injunction or stay order for a week or so because in such cases the usual tendency of unnecessarily prolonging the matters by the plaintiffs or the petitioners after obtaining ex-parte injunction orders or stay orders may not find encouragement. We have to dispel the common impression that a party by obtaining an injunction based on even false averments and forged documents will tire out the true owner and ultimately the true owner will have to give up to the wrong-doer his legitimate profit. It is also a matter of common experience that to achieve clandestine objects, false pleas are often taken and forged documents are filed indiscriminately in our Courts because they have hardly any apprehension of being prosecuted for perjury by the Courts or even pay heavy costs. In Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, IV (2000) SLT 138=II (2000) CCR 149 (SC)=(2000) 5 SCC 668, this Court was constrained to observe that perjury has become a way of life in our Courts.

It is a typical example how a litigation proceeds and continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrong-doer.

Learned amicus articulated common man’s general impression about litigation in following words”

“Make any false averment, conceal any fact, raise any plea, produce any false documents, deny any genuine documents, it will successfully stall the litigation, and in any case, delay the matter endlessly. The other party will be coerced into a settlement which will be profitable for me and the probability of the Court ordering prosecution for perjury is less than that of meeting with an accident while crossing the road.”

This Court in Swaran Singh (supra) observed as under:

“……………………….Perjury has also become a way of life in the law Courts. A trial Judge knows that the witness is telling a lie and is going back on his previous statement, yet he does not wish to punish him or even file a complaint against him. He is required to sign the complaint himself which deters him from filing the complaint. Perhaps law needs amendment to Clause (b) of Section 340 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this respect as the High Court can direct any officer to file a complaint. To get rid of the evil of perjury, the Court should resort to the use of the provisions of law as contained in Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

10.  Complainant in the present case has been able to drag Delhi Jal Board into a false litigation for a period of six years. Even after dismissal of the complaint he filed an appeal. Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides for dismissal of the frivolous or vexatious complaints and payment of costs (not exceededing Rs. 10,000/-) to the OP. Present complaint is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the appellant/complainant to Delhi Jal Board. Costs shall be paid within a period of thirty days from today.
11. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
12. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

 

 

(N P Kaushik)

Member (Judicial)