DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.448 of 2018

                                               Date of institution:  13.04.2018                                             Date of decision   :  22.10.2019

Nasib Singh son of Late Shri Sarwan Singh aged 74 years, resident of village and post office Sohana, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar –Mohali (Punjab).

…….Complainant

Versus

The Sub Divisional Officer, Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Division No.II, Phase-2, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                                                        ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri R.K. Gautam, counsel for the complainant.

                Ms. Simran Kaur, SDO on behalf of OP.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant got supply of water in his house situate in village and post office Sohana from OP on payment of Rs.75/- per month as charges for water supply, but Rs.15/- as sewerage charges. Complainant has been paying the bills regularly as raised by OP from time to time. OP raised water bill dated 02.08.2016 of house of complainant for period from March, 2016 to June, 2016 of amount of Rs.360/- i.e. Rs.300/- for water charges and Rs.60/- for sewerage charges. Payment of that bill amount was made by complainant. Thereafter complainant received impugned water bill dated 15.11.2017 from OP in which total amount of current charges shown as Rs.300/- + Rs.60/-, but in the column of arrears an amount of Rs.1,100/- shown as outstanding. Complainant on enquiry from the department got knowledge as if this amount pertains to period from July, 2016 to April, 2017 i.e. for period of 10 months. However, the amount for water charges for 10 months of Rs.750/-, but of Rs.150/- as sewerage charges alone can be claimed. It is claimed that outstanding amount for above said period virtually is Rs.900/-, but OP raised demand as arrears of Rs.1,100/- without any justification. It is claimed that default committed by OP by not sending water bills regularly i.e. after period of every two months as per regulations. Written complaint was lodged with OP through registered post for seeking refund of penalty amount of Rs.200/- with market rate of interest, but to no effect. By pleading deficiency in service on part of OP, prayer made for directing OP to refund penalty amount of Rs.200/- with market rate of interest. Compensation for mental and physical harassment and litigation expenses also sought.

2.             In reply submitted on behalf of OP, it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint is not maintainable, more so when complainant has filed wrong affidavit citing PSPCL as a party; complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands; purpose of complainant is to satisfy his ego for harassing OP; complainant is habitual litigant of filing false and frivolous complaints against the authorities and department and that water bills for the period in question were regularly issued to complainant. It is claimed that complainant was never charged any penalty so long as he kept on paying bills regularly. Penalty of Rs.200/- is justified as per rules and regulations, more so when on the water bills issued by the department it is clearly mentioned that in case of non receipt or loss of water bill, consumer should approach concerned office immediately, but complainant has not approached the concerned office. Other averments of the complaint denied.

3.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and then closed evidence. On the other hand Shri Komal Kant, JE on behalf of OP tendered affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Ms. Simran Kaur, SDO alongwith document Ex.OP-1 and then closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments submitted by parties. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             During course of arguments, Ms. Simran Kaur, SDO submitted details of current charges alongwith period and amount, which were paid or unpaid and that list (as filed today) retained on record. There is no dispute regarding the fact that amount of bill Ex.C-1 of Rs.360/- was paid by complainant. From contents of affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 of complainant as well as from contents of complaint, it is made out that bill Ex.C-1 of amount of Rs.360/- for period from March, 2016 to June, 2016 was paid. However, complainant claims as if bills for period from July, 2016 to April, 2017 had never been issued and that is why penalty amount of Rs.200/- cannot be charged from him. It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that it was the duty of OP to send bills of charges of consumption on monthly or quarterly basis, but OP failed to do the same and as such in view of default committed by OP, complainant not bound to pay penalty charges of Rs.200/- sought through bill Ex.C-2. It is not disputed during arguments that bill of water consumption charges for period from July, 2016 to April, 2017 for 10 months will be of amount of Rs.750/-, but bill for sewerage charges for this period of 10 months will be Rs.150/-, due to which complainant will have to pay Rs.900/- as charges for water consumption and sewerage use. However, through bill Ex.C-2 previous arrears of Rs.1,100/- sought and as such certainly it is made out that penalty of amount of Rs.200/- added to the outstanding amount of Rs.900/-.

6.             Bone of contention remains as to whether complainant is under obligation to pay penalty amount of Rs.200/- or not. Though it is contended on behalf of OP that bills for period from July, 2016 to April, 2017 used to be sent, but no document or receipt obtained from complainant, produced to show about dispatch of regular bills during this period to complainant. Complainant sent letter Ex.C-3 dated 06.12.2017 to OP for claiming that bills have not been issued for the period in dispute i.e. July, 2016 to April, 2017. However, when we go through copies of bills produced on record as Ex.C-1, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7, then it is made out that as per Note No.5 appended on these bills, it is the duty of consumer to contact concerned office at once in case bill not received or lost. So even if OP unable to establish that bills actually were dispatched to complainant, despite that in view of endorsement of Note No.5 on all the bills, it was the duty of complainant as consumer to approach the concerned office on account of non receipt of bills regularly during period from July, 2016 to April, 2017. Complainant has not contacted OP or its officials, but filed application Ex.C-3 after receipt of impugned bill Ex.C-2 dated 15.11.2017 and as such it is obvious that complainant himself remained at fault in not abiding by obligation of contacting the department in the event of non receipt of bills regularly. Terms and conditions of contract endorsed on bills referred above are binding on parties and if that be the position, then certainly OP entitled to recover penalty amount of Rs.200/- as arrears due to nonpayment of bills regularly for period from July, 2016 to April, 2017. As amount of bills for period from July, 2016 to April, 2017 remained unpaid and as such certainly OP entitled to recover outstanding amount with penalty amount as per rules and regulations. Complainant cannot get benefit of his own fault in not contacting OP after non receipt of bills regularly because complainant himself failed to discharge obligation of contacting the concerned office.  Due amounts shown in the statement as submitted today are shown in the ledger Ex.OP-1 tendered in course of evidence by OP and as such submission advanced by representative of OP has force that no deficiency in service committed by OP.

7.             Bill Ex.C-4 raised with respect to current charges for January/February, 2016, whereas bill Ex.C-5 pertains to charges for period from September, 2017 to December, 2017, but bill Ex.C-6 pertains to recoverable charges for period from May, 2018 to August, 2018, whereas bill Ex.C-7 pertains to recoverable charges for period from September, 2018 to October, 2018. Amounts of these bills Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7 not disputed, but dispute raised only with respect to recovery of penalty amount of Rs.200/- on account of default in payment of bills during period from July, 2016 to April, 2017. OP can charge penalty amount because of default on part of complainant, as referred above and as such certainly no deficient services rendered by OP at all. Rather demand of penalty charges raised as per rules and regulations and as such complaint merits dismissal without any order as to costs.

8.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

October 22, 2019.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member