DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

          Complaint Case No.: 894 of 2009

 Date of Inst:26.06.2009

                Date of Decision:18.03.2010

Satyawati Saini r/o H.No.1035-A, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh.

                                 ---Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   Executive Engineer, Public Health, UT, Sector 11, Chandigarh.

2.   SDO, Public Health, Sub Division No.4, Sector 18, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties

QUORUM       

              SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA         PRESIDENT

              SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI      MEMBER

              SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

PRESENT:      Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant

None for OPs.

                            ---

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

          Sh.Satyawati Saini has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed  to rectify the discrepancies in the water bills (Annexure C-1 to C-4) and to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- besides Rs.3300/- as cost of litigation.

2         In brief the case of the complainant is that she is having water connection in her Govt. accommodation bearing account No.106/2006/1035AOQ. She had been depositing the bills on regular basis without any default. No amount is outstanding against her. According to the complainant, she received the bills (Annexure C-1 to C-4) amounting to Rs.500/-, Rs.408/-, Rs.408/- and Rs.894/- respectively. The said bills were inflated as she earlier used to receive the water bills at the average of Rs.250/- to Rs.300/-. It has further been pleaded that she approached OPs for its rectification. She was advised to get the meter checked. So she deposited Rs.65/- as fee for meter checking. The meter was checked and found to be O.K. However, even thereafter she received a bill of Rs.698/- in the month of Feb.2010. Thus, the bill is again inflated. Despite her repeated requests, the water bills have not been rectified by OPs which amount to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.        In the reply filed by OPs, it has been asserted that the complainant is being charged for the water usage on the basis of its actual consumption. The meter was got checked by the complainant which was found to be O.K., therefore, the bills cannot be reduced simply on whimsical basis. In these circumstances, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.        None appeared on behalf of the OPs at the time of arguments. As the case was  already fixed for arguments, therefore, we decided to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with section 13(2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date even in the absence of the learned counsel for the OPs. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the record very carefully.

5.        Admittedly, the meter was got checked by the complainant herself and the meter was found Okay. The complainant is being charged for water usage on the basis of its actual consumption. There is no material on record to prove that the complainant is being charged excessively and the meter is defective. Therefore, the bills cannot be reduced simply on the ground that earlier she had been receiving the bills of lesser amounts.

6.        In view of the above findings, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against OPs. Hence, this complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

7.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

18.03.2010

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

cm

sd/-

(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER