NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3986/2006

DELHI JAL BOARD - Complainant(s)

Versus

MRS. PARMESHWARI DEVI AHLAWAT - Opp.Party(s)

H.S.KOHLI

01 Mar 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3986 OF 2006
 
(Against the Order dated 07/07/2006 in Appeal No. 2334/2001 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. DELHI JAL BOARD
AARUNALAYA BUILDING PHASE , -II
JHANDEWALAN
NEW DELHI -110055
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. MRS. PARMESHWARI DEVI AHLAWAT
C-1/1 RAME PARK UTTAM NAGAR
NEW DELHI
110059
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
MR. H.S. KOHLI, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent :
IN PERSON

Dated : 01 Mar 2011
ORDER

 

 

This order shall dispose of R.P Nos. 3986/2006 and  3987/2006 as the facts and point of law involved in both these cases are the same.  Facts are taken from R.P. No. 3986/2006. 

 

- 2-

               Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum. 

     Respondent/complainant was running a Nursing Home in an unauthorized colony  and she had taken water connection from the petitioner – Jal Board which raised a bill for Rs. 1,850/- for the period from 15.07.97 to 14.07.98. Another bill, dated 04.01.2000 for           Rs. 31,184/- towards water charges, including Rs. 18,400/- as development charges and Rs. 12,784/- as interest and development charges from 01.06.1994 to 31.01.2000, was also raised by the petitioner. Alleging that the respondent is liable to pay only the development charges and not the interest and penalty, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the opp.party not to charge any interest from the respondent.  District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to provide water connection to the respondent on payment of Rs. 18,400/- as development charges without any interest. 

    Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

          Counsel for the petitioners and respondents who appeared in person are heard.     Respondents   have  been  directed  to  pay   the 

- 3 -

development charges, as per demand.  The issue now left for determination is regarding payment of interest of Rs. 12,784/- by the respondents.  Since the respondents are poor persons and the amount involved is very small, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission. The Revision petitions are dismissed, leaving the question of law, open.

 

 

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
SURESH CHANDRA
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.