BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Tarsem Chand, R/o House No.2221/B, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1]     SDO Water Supply, W/S Sub Division No.4, Sector 18, Chandigarh U.T.

2]     Executive Engineer Public Health Division No.3, Sector 9, Chandigarh

                                        ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL 

PRESIDING MEMBER

DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA   

MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Rajinder Singh, A.E. O/O OP-1.

Sh.Jatinder Singh, G.P. for OP-2 along with Sh.Inderjet Singh, J.E. O/O OP-2.

PER DR.(MRS.) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

1]           Precisely put, the complainant, residing in a Govt. Accommodation, having Water Connection – A/C No.2010222/20A and regularly paying the bills, received an inflated Bill of Rs.2880/- for the month of July & Nov. (Ann.C-1) from OP showing consumption of 487 units.  The complainant visited the OPs, showed them previous water bills showing less consumption and requested them to correct the bill in question.  The OPs asked him to get the meter tested. Accordingly, the meter was got checked on depositing the requisite fee and as per the report, the meter was found to be O.K. (Ann.C-2 to C-5). 

              It is averred that the complainant wrote a letter to the OPs followed by reminder that the report of meter testing is OK and there must be some other fault in the pipeline, which needs to be rectified (Ann.C-6 & C-7).   The technician of the OP visited the premises on 30.12.2011 and changed the coupling of the meter, which was to be purchased by the complainant for Rs.60/- (Ann.C8). 

              It is asserted that the complainant again received a bill for Rs.4890/- showing arrears of Rs.3168/- as he did not deposit the previous bill.  The consumption for two months is shown as 259 units, which is highly inflated, as the average consumption of the complainant even in the summer season was only 50-70 units in two months (Ann.C-9 & C-10).  It is also asserted that even earlier a complainant was filed against the OPs, which was compromised/settled before Hon’ble District Consumer Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh and the OP had rectified the defects in the bill (Ann.C-11).  However, the OPs neither rectified the defect in the pipeline nor correct the bill in question, which is highly inflated.  Hence, this complainant alleging the said act of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 

2]           OPs filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It is stated that the bill issued for the months from July to November for Rs.2880/- was totally in accordance with the meter reading.  It is also stated that even the meter on testing was found to be in OK condition, so the claim of the complainant that the bill is inflated & wrong one, is baseless.  It is submitted that the coupling of the meter was changed in order to remove all doubts, but even thereafter the meter reading showed the consumption of 259 units, thus the water bill is clearly in accordance with the water consumption of the complainant.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

              OP-2 also filed reply stating therein that the complaint lodged by the complainant on 22.12.2011, was attended to within a reasonable period of one week, that too in the exceptional circumstances when the premises at the ground floor, where all the Water Meters including that of the complainant are installed, most of the times was found to be locked by the maintenance staff.  It is also stated that as the floor of the rear court yard was to be broken to dig out the defective water pipe to replace the same with a new one, thus the delay of few days occurred in attending the complaint, which was beyond the control of maintenance staff.  The OP No.2 also took objection to the effect that the complainant is not a consumer qua it because it provides free maintenance services to the house allotted to the complainant.  It is also stated that since the complaint of the complainant has already been attended to and the defect existing at the site has been removed, within a reasonable time, hence there is no deficiency on its part.  Rest of the allegations have been denied being related to OP NO.1 and it is prayed that the complaint qua OP-2 be dismissed.

3]           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]           We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5]           The crux of the dispute is that the OP No.1 had issued him a highly inflated water bill showing the consumption of 487 units for the month of July to Nov.2011 (Ann.C-1) whereas the earlier water bills clearly showed the consumption of much less units (Ann.C-9).  The matter was brought to the notice of OPs but nothing concrete has been done by them to rectify the defect either in the meter or in the water pipelines, as a result, the high consumption of water units is reflecting and inflated bills are being issued. 

6]           On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for the OP NO.1 contended that the water bills in question were being issued as correctly as per the meter reading.  It is also contended that though the meter on testing was found OK, but even then the coupling of the meter was changed in order to remove the doubts, but still meter showed the consumption of 259 units, which is correct.

7]           The ld.Counsel for OP No.2 contended that the complaint lodged by the complainant was attended to and the defecting existing at the site has been removed, hence pleaded no deficiency on its part.

8]           After going through the facts & circumstances of the case, perusing the documents on record and hearing the ld.Counsel for the complainant, G.P. for OP No.2 as well as Officers of OPs NO.1 & 2, it has been made out that the Bills in dispute i.e. Ann.C-1 & C-9 pertains to the period 15^th July,2011 to 15^th Nov.,2011 and 15^th Nov.,2011 to 15^th Jan.,2012 showing consumption of 487 & 259 units, whereas the water Bill Ann.C-4 for the period from 21^st Jun,2011 to 15^th July, 2011 shows the consumption of 21 units.

9]           If we make the comparison of the abovementioned water bills issued by the OP to the complainant, it clearly reveals that the consumption in the month of June & July, which is Summer season, is much less than the months of July to Jan, which is the rainy & winter season.  Certainly the water consumption in the Summer season should be high as compare to the Rainy & Winter seasons.  But the position here is contrary and rather, other way round.  The reflection of high consumption of water units for the months from July to January, against the month of June, itself proves that there must be some defect either in the water meter or in the water pipelines.  Moreover, even during the course of arguments, the Officers appearing for the OPs were totally unable to justify, rebut & controvert the query putforth by the Bench as to how the water consumption is on the higher side of a Residential Premises in Winter Season and contrary to that in the Summer Season.   

10]         The OPs have failed to prove their case by giving plausible justification regarding such high consumption of water units as reflected in the bills in dispute of the complainant. The poor consumer/complainant should not be made a scapegoat for any fault either in the water meter or in the pipeline, especially when the matter had already been brought to their notice. 

11]         It is pertinent to mention here that as per Consumer Protection Act the redressal agencies are empowered to give relief of a specific nature.  Section 6.(d) of the C.P.Act clearly stipulates that” the right to be heard and to be assured that consumer’s interest will receive due consideration…..’

12]         The objection taken by OP No.2 that the complainant is not a consumer qua it as the service provided to him was free of any charges, is not sustainable.  The OP No.2 & its Officers are being paid by the Government for rendering services to the consumers like complainant, hence the complainant is very well a consumer qua OP NO.2.

13]         From the above discussion and findings, it is proved that first the exorbitant bills issued and then thrust upon the petty consumer, just to pay, leaving no option, is a clear case of consumer harassment. It is proved that the OPs have wrongly & illegally issued the highly inflated water bills to the complainant, without rectifying the defects, resultantly, the complainant has to undergo harassment and mental agony.  Thus, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs is writ large. 

14]         Moreover, in the interest of natural justice, just to save the rare natural resource i.e. Water and to avoid its wastage, with a motive of its proper & better use, the OPs should have taken the complaint lodged by the complainant seriously and should have done every efforts to rectify & remove the defect to avoid any water wastage as well as harassment caused to the complainant.  

15]         Keeping in view the entirety of the case, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that OPs remained grossly deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant by not rectifying the defect in the water meter or pipeline and issuing highly inflated bills.  Thus, we find lot of merit, weight and substance in the present complaint. The same is therefore allowed. The OPs are jointly & severally directed as under:-

i)     To replace the water meter of the complainant with brand new one &  check the water pipes and replace/change the same in case of any leakage, free of cost.

ii)    To take the new reading of water consumption of the complainant for consecutive 6 months after comply with directions at 15(i).

iii)   To issue fresh water bills, after calculating the average of water consumption of 6 months, as per direction at Para 15(ii), and reconciling the previous water bills of the complainant, pertaining to the period w.e.f. July, 2011 till the date of installation of new water meter. 

iv)   The OPs are also directed jointly & severally to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for causing mental & physical harassment to the complainant, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

              This order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay the above awarded amount of Rs.5000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 07.03.2012 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation costs, as aforesaid.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.