DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.181/2017
Saheen Kapoor
1/11, Sarva Priya Vihar,
New Delhi- 16
….Complainant
Versus
Malviya Nagar Water Services (P) Ltd.
D-Block Saket,
Opp. PVR Cinema Complex,
New Delhi- 17
Delhi Jal Board
Sector- VII, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi- 22
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 25.05.2017
Date of Order : 28.03.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: U.K. Tyagi
Complainant has prayed for seeking direction for (i) rectification of impugned bill dated 20.02.2016; compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony/harassment; and cost of litigation.
The facts leading to the case are that the Malviya Nagar Water Services (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP-1) had issued the alleged bill dated 20.02.2016 which is purportedly for 446 days and showing a consumption of 2300 units (1 Unit = Kiloliter) daily water supply, (consumption of 5.156 KL). The copy of same is exhibited as Annexure-‘1’. The alleged bill is for the supply of water consumption for the period 01.12.2015 to 20.02.2016. The bills are raised after reading taken by the concerned meter reader of OP. As such, the alleged bill amounting to an exorbitant amount of Rs.1,17,658.00/- towards daily water supply of 5156 liters seems unbeliable/untenable. The alleged bill pertains to 2nd Floor, 1/11 Sarva Priya Vihar, New Delhi. The said flat comprises of two bathrooms and one kitchen having covered area of 1200 sq. ft. No booster pump is installed after the said water Meter. It is also added by the Complainant that supply of water on an average daily basis does not exceed two hours. It is further stated that on peak water pressure near the meter, one liter bottle is filled in about 10 secs arriving at peak Flow Rate of 360 liters per hours. (or 0.100 liters per sec) The arithmetical figure of 0.100 Liters per second clearly corroborates with the standard flow rate app. of ISO-2944 Fluid Power System for a 15mm ISO-65 medium series steel pipe at an applied guage pressure 1.0 Bar. Based on this calculation, a maximum of 360X2= 720 liters can be supplied in the given supply time.
The Complainant further stated that aggrieved by the alleged Bill, he had written to Mr. Sunny Gupta, Malviya Nagar Water Supply (P) Ltd., no fruitful response was received. A legal Notice was also sent. Further, a notice dated 11.05.2017 was received from OP demanding Rs.1,26,191/- failing the said payment, resulting in disconnection of water supply. Notice is replied to as well.
On the other hand, OP-1 raised preliminary objections claiming that the complaint does not fall within the ambit of consumer as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, it is stated that the jurisdiction of said Act can be invoked only when facts are not in dispute. Here considering the nature of the instant case, the proper application of evidences can be done in Civil Courts only. The case, if at all, is against OP-2. Complainant has failed to disclose any reasons for arraying the OP-1 as a party. The OP-1 has entered into agreement with OP-2 on Public Private Partnership basis to improve the efficiency of water distribution network. It is also maintained by the OP-1 that the perusal of records indicates seven hours supply of water at said point. Contrary to the Complainant’s stand, total supply in a day can be flowed approx. 10500 liters.
Whereas, OP-2 i.e. Delhi Jal Board states that Malviya Nagar Water Services (P) Ltd. is a agency, works on tender basis for OP-2 for upkeep and repair of water connections and meter and thereafter raising bills. The instant bill is raised without any discrepancy. OP-2 also contended that the water supply in the said area is maintained 7 hours daily and daily supply amounts to 10500 liters daily. No further technical counter-evidence is adduced by either of the Ops to this effect.
All the parties have filed written submissions and evidence in-affidavits. Rejoinder is also on record so is the written statement. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone through the material on record carefully and also given sincere thought to the pleadings so made by the respective advocates/parties. It was admitted by the Complainant that she was living with her husband i.e. Saket Kapur in the said premises as they are legal heir of the deceased Sh. K.K. Kapur. It is also averred by the Complainant that her husband had reported about excess supply of water being recorded in one meter out of total three meters installed in said premises. No reasonable response was advanced by the OPs. This Commission also noticed that there appears contradiction as to supply hours and volume of water supplied. The Complainant maintains the water supply for 4 hours daily whereas the OPs states that the water supply was maintained 7 hours daily but no technical evidence was produced by the OPs who are in better position to do so. The Complainant also denied this fact of OPs that facts of the case are not res IPSA Loquiter (facts speak for itself). It appears that the Complainant has tried to explain the said contention lucidly.
The Complainant also places reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein it is held that once such jurisdiction as fact is found to exist, the Court or Tribunal has power to decide on adjudicatory facts or facts in issue as mentioned in the case of Setu Charter Ramabhadra Raju Bahadur V/s Maharaja of Jeypore AIR 1919 PC 150.
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Dr. Jagmittar Sain Baghat & Ors. v/s Director, Health Services (Haryana), it is asserted that the “Act was enacted to provide for the better protection of interest of consumers, such as the right to be protected against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property; the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices; and right to seek redressal against an unscrupulous exploitation of consumers, and further to provide right to consumer education etc. as is evident from the statement of objects and reasons of the Act…”
In view of the above elaboration of Apex Court, the complaint is well within jurisdiction of this Commission.
The Commission also noted the averments of OPs and Complainant with regard to supply of water per hour consciously. But the OPs have not commented upon the capacity of pipes to carry water per hour. It is clear to us that some technical evidence to support the said contention should have been adduced by the OPs. In the absence of technical evidence on the part of OPs, it leads us to believe the averments made by the Complainant.
Hence, we are of the considered view that there is reasonable force in the contention of the Complainant and accordingly the OPs are directed to rectify the alleged bill within 3 months; also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony/harassment and a sum of Rs.5000/- litigation charges from the date of this order failing which interest shall be levied @9% p.a. on the entire amount till the compliance of the above direction.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties.
