Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/618/2020

Somesh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Municipal Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Aug 2022

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	618 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	11.11.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	11.08.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Somesh Gupta s/o Sh.K.L.Gupta, R/o H.No.5739, Sector 38 (West), Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

Sub Divisional Engineer, MCPH Sub Division No.9, Sector 37 (Water Supply), Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. 

 

    ….. Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        PRESIDING MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

                               

For Complainant : Complainant in person

For OPs         : Sh.Deepak Malhotra, Advocate

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

         Concisely put, the complainant having Water Connection, provided by OP at his residence vide Account No.310/3820/573900E.  It is stated that the complainant started receiving water bill on Average from May, 2019 at inflated rate of above Rs.1000/-, in comparison to his old water bills which were for less than Rs.500/- and that too when their employees used to record the water reading regularly.  Then, the complainant sent legal notice to OP in this regard on 25.2.2020 (Ann.C-2) with request to look into the matter, correct all previous bills sent on average basis and refund the excess amount charges with same rate of interest/penalty which they charged for delayed payment.  However, the OP did nothing and the complainant received another water bill dated 12.6.2020 for an amount of Rs.2136/-.  Thereafter, the complainant moved another representation to OP on 14.7.2020 and made personal visits, whereupon he was advised by the OP to change his water mater as the same is defective.  Accordingly, the complainant purchased new water meter, deposited a fee of Rs.180/- with OP and then it has been installed by OP on 17.7.2020 after taking old water meter (Ann.C-4). It is submitted that even thereafter the complainant received water bill dated 10.8.2020 (Ann.C-5) on average basis for an amount of Rs.1017/- and then another bill dated 16.9.2020 for Rs.631/- for the period from 16.6.2020 to 15.8.2020 whereas the new water meter was installed by the employee of OP On 17.7.2020 (Ann.C-6). The complainant also sent second legal notice dated 28.9.2020 to the OP and also made personal visits to set right the old water bills, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and admitted the assertions as made in complaint about issuing of water bills to the complainant on average basis, receipt of bills thereof from the complainant, change of defective water meter and issuance of new bills as per reading. It is stated that the complainant was using defective water meter, so he was charged water bill with penalty.  It is submitted that the complainant knew that the water meter was faulty and he was ignoring this fact and was depending upon the OP to rectify the same whereas it is clearly mentioned on the backside of every water bill (Ann.R-2) that the replacement of faulty/defective meter will be done by consumer to get the faulty/defective meter replaced within one month from the issue of water charges bill of defective meter otherwise recovery on penal rate i.e. double the applicable tariff will be charged from the consumer.  It is also submitted that in case of defective meter, defective meter status code (D) is reflected in the water meter bill and in the present case, water bill for the period from 2/2019 to 4/2019 having charges of Rs.477/- and showing code D is sent to the complainant, which is also reflected in the account statement of complainant prepared by OP (Ann.R-3).   It is stated that in between vide notification dated 21.6.2019, water surcharges were increased to 30% of water consumption amount so the same was charged from the complainant as per law. It is also stated that the complainant was getting water bill for the amount mentioned in the legal notice for the reason that his meter was defective and he has not replaced the faulty meter.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OP made in its reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record including written arguments.   

 

6]       The complainant has admittedly been charged by OP on Average basis for the water consumption from Feb., 2019 till Aug., 2020.  The OP’s version is that the complainant’s water meter being defective was in his knowledge as the defective meter status code (D) is reflected in his water meter bill.  However, the OP, who are in possession of all water bills of complainant being issued by it from time to time, did not place it on record to prove its version and instead prefer to file a handwritten report (Ann.R-3), for the best reason known to it, which too is not supported by duly sworn affidavit of the person who signed it, so it cannot be relied upon. The OP also did not bother to reply the legal notice dated 25.2.2020 (Ann.C-2) given by complainant and duly receipt by it vide diary No.482, dated 25.2.2020 nor denied its receipt in the written reply, which proves that the complainant raised his grievance of inflated bills with the OP well in time, so the complainant cannot be made to suffer for the negligence or carelessness of the OP. Therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of OP is writ large, which certainly caused loss and harassment to the complainant.

 

7]       From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that it is proved that the OP has acted carelessly & wrongfully, which amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Therefore, the present complaint stands allowed against OP with direction to revise the water consumption bill of the complainant from Feb., 2019 to Aug., 2020 by taking into account the reading & consumption of the corresponding previous period i.e. Feb., 2017 to Aug., 2018 and credit the excess amount, if any, in the water bill account of the complainant as well as to supply the copy of such calculation in tabulated form to the complainant. The OP is also directed to pay a compository amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing him immense mental agony & harassment due to their wrongful, deficient, omission & commission, which also includes litigation cost.  

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.15000/- apart from above relief.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.   

Announced

11^th August, 2022                                                                             sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER