Haryana

Karnal

CC/157/2020

Jogider Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Kumar

29 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                       Complaint No. 157 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.13.03.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:29.03.2023

 

Joginder Kaur wife of late Shri Santokh Singh Khillan, resident of house no.96, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Haryana Urban Development Authority (water and sewerage), sector-12, Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Vinod Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Amit Munjal, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complaint is 82 years of age and complainant’s husband expired on 05.09.2015 and after the death of her husband, complainant has been residing with her son. The average consumption of the water for the residential house of the complainant was not more than Rs.200/- to 250/- for two months. The complainant had been deposited the water consumption bill regularly to the OP. After the death of her husband, complainant received a water bill amounting to Rs.7685/- for the period of 01.01.2018 to 28.02.2018 which was on very higher side and the complainant moved an application dated 20.03.2018 to the OP to correct the bill as per consumption. It was also found that the water meter installed at the house of the complainant was faulty and was  not showing any reading as per consumption of water. Complainant moved an application with the OP to correct the said bill but OP did  not take any action and to correct the bill. In the meantime, OP has sent the bill on average basis which was very highly. Lastly, OP has sent an illegal bill amounting to Rs.20961/- dated 31.01.2020. OP has not been changing the faulty water meter and is bent upon to charge the illegal arrears of water bill. OP has been threatening to disconnect the water supply. Complainant is ready to deposit the actual water consumption bill. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is denied that average consumption of water for residential house no.96, sector-13, Karnal of the complainant was not more than Rs.200-250/- for two months and that she has received water bill for period from 01.01.2018 to 28.02.2018 of Rs.7685/- which was on higher side. The OP has sent a bill amounting to Rs.20961/- dated 31.01.2020. It is denied that average consumption bill of Rs.200-250 for two months. As per notification dated 19.04.2017 and 12.01.2018 issued by the Chief Administrator, HSVP, whereby water bill is bound to rise due to change in tariff. Furthermore, the complainant has been charged for unmetered charges, as her meter is not working. It is further pleaded that there are different slabs for metered bill and unmetered bill specified in the notification. The complainant has wrongly contended that OP is not changing the faulty water meter. Rather, complainant has not submitted any application for change of meter so far. As per abovesaid notifications, responsibility is of the allottee to get the meter changed.  It is further pleaded that complainant has alleged that she moved an application dated 20.03.2018 to the OP to correct the bill as per consumption but complainant has neither supplied the copy of alleged letter nor has specified the officer or particular office to which said letter was addressed nor has she disclosed the mode through which said letter was sent. No such letter was ever received. Since no such letter was ever received, the question of taking any action thereon does not arise. It is further pleaded that complainant did not make the payment for the period from 01.10.2015 till 31.12.2015. She paid the amount of Rs.674/- for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.07.2016. Thereafter, for the period from 01.08.2016 to 31.10.2016 she did not pay the bill. She paid an amount of Rs.1130 for the period from 01.11.2016 to 31.01.2017 in favour of HSVP through UBI bank Sector-12, Karnal. Thereafter, she has not paid any amount towards the bills for the period 01.02.2017 onwards till for the period from 01.01.2020 to 31.05.2020 despite receiving the bills. The complainant has accumulated the amount remaining unpaid by her. Moreover, the sewerage charges are fixed and liable to be paid. It is further pleaded that complainant has been in default for last three years and thus, her averments that she is ready to deposit actual water consumption bill is liable to be rejected as she has failed to take any action to get it back. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copies of bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C8, copy of application dated 20.03.2018 Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 10.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Aditya Sharma, Superintending Engineer Ex.OP1/A, copy of ledger Ex.OP1, copy of notifications dated 19.04.2017 and 12.01.2018 Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3, copy of letter received register Ex.OP4, copies of bills Ex.OP5 to Ex.OP27 and copy of ledger Ex.OP28 and closed the evidence on 27.10.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is having a water connection from the OP and paid the water bills regularly. Complainant received a water bill amounting to Rs.7685/- for the period of 01.01.2018 to 28.02.2018 which was on very higher side. Complainant moved an application dated 20.03.2018 to the OP to correct the bill and change of water meter but OP did not take any action to correct the bill and also not change the faulty meter. OP has also sent an illegal bill amounting to Rs.20961/- dated 31.01.2020.  Complainant is ready to deposit the actual water consumption bill and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the OP has rightly sent a bill amounting to Rs.20961/- dated 31.01.2020. The complainant has been charged for unmetered charges, as her meter is not working. He further argued that complainant never moved the application dated 20.03.2018 to the OP to correct the bill or change the meter as OP has letter was ever received. Complainant has  not been paid the water bills last three years and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Vide notification dated 19.04.2017 and 12.02.2018 issued by Chief Administrator, HSVP, Panchkula water and sewerage bills has been revised w.e.f. 01.06.2017 and 01.10.2018 respectively. Admittedly, water meter of the complainant was faulty. As per version of the OP, complainant never moved any application for changing of the meter and she was bound to get the meter changed as per terms of the notification dated 19.04.2017 and 12.01.2018.

11.           The onus to prove her version was relied upon of the complainant. It is evident from Ex.C9 dated 20.03.2018, the complainant has moved the said application to Estate Officer, HSVP, Karnal for correction of the water bill/change of the water meter. Said application has duly receipt by the OP. OP has simply stated that the complainant not submitted any application for change of the meter but they are silent with regard to receipt of said application. It has been proved from the receipt of the said application, the complainant had moved the said application and OP has neither corrected the bill nor change the faulty water meter. OP has issued the disputed bill on average basis, which is not justified in the eyes of law when the complainant has moved application for correction of the bill and changing of the faulty meter. But till date OP has not changed the faulty water meter. Thus, the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service.  

12.           Thus, in view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to change the faulty water meter on the cost of the complainant and issued the subsequent bills as per actual consumption. We further direct the OP to issue the water bills for the disputed period on the basis of new meter-reading of succeeding six months and on receipt of the said bills, complainant is bound to pay the same. No order as to costs.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of order. The amount, if any, deposited by the complainant of the disputed period, it shall be adjusted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:29.03.2023

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                           Member                          Member