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

Jagan Nath Brij Kumar (P) Ltd. through its Director Sh.Surinder Singal, Regd. Office, SCO No.15, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                 ---Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1.  Superintending Engineer, Municipal Corporation Chandigarh Public Health (water Supply), Municipal Corporation Chandigarh Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

2.  Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Public Health Division No.2, Engineering Department, Chandigarh Administration, Sector 11 (Near Karuna Sadan Building), Chandigarh.

3.  Sub Divisional Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Public Health, Water Supply, Sub Division No.4, Sector 18, Chandigarh.

                      ---Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL

                              PRESIDING MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA 

MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh.T.S.Khera, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Gunjan Rishi, Counsel for complainant.

Ms.Deepali Puri, Counsel for OPs.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

         In short, the complainant firm, having water connection No.102/2616/8015OOU, was consistently writing to the OPs vide Ann.C-1 to C-5 about the excessive charges on account of exaggerated meter reading in the water bills from the year 2004. The bills were paid regularly, without any default. It is averred that vide letter dated 23.07.2008 (Ann.C-6), the complainant was informed by OP-3 that the meter reading was O.K. and if he has any doubts, then he could get the meter as well as underground water leakage checked. Thereafter, the complainant deposited the requisite fee vide receipt dated 04.09.2008 (Ann.C-8) for testing the underground leakage in the water meter line. As on testing, no leakage was found, therefore, the complainant again requested the OPs for testing the water meter and change it, if found defective. Consequently, the meter being defective was changed by the OPs in January, 2009. The complainant asserted that he wrote numerous letters (Ann. C-9 to C-11) to OPs to refund the excess amount, charged from him, on account of defective meter, because after the change of the water meter, the subsequent water bills were 20% of the earlier bills, but the OPs did not take any action towards refunding the excess amount. According to the complainant, vide letter dated 29.12.2009 (Ann. C-12), the OP-3 revised the bill account w.e.f. 15.07.07 to 15.01.2009 on the basis of the water meter being 9% fast and credited the amount of Rs.5280/- in his account. However, in the water bills issued on 08.12.2009 and 08.02.2010, again an amount of Rs.5280/- was credited into their account as Sundry Allowance. The complainant alleged that the OPs had charged Rs.1,56,000/- (60 months @ Rs.2600/- per month) excessively for the period from Jan. 2004 to Jan. 2009, but the OPs failed to overhaul the disputed account. It is averred that after the change of water meter, the OPs charged fixed rate of Rs.615/- per month, henceforth there was a difference of Rs.1,19,100/- on account of excessive charges. It is also averred that the water bills, received for the period from Jan. 2009 to Feb.2011, indicated that the water consumption was very low and it did not cross the quantity permissible for minimum fixed charges. The complainant vide letter dated 12.07.2010 requested the OP-3 to charge the minimum fixed rates of the relevant time and refund the excess amount already charged, which was replied by the OPs to the effect that the minimum fixed charges levied by the MCPH, as per the Chandigarh Water Supply Bylaws, was Rs.550/- per month. The complainant again wrote letters dated 01.09.2010 & 15.10.2010 to the Chief Engineer to charge the minimum fixed rate for the said relevant period and also to make adjustment/reimbursement of excess amount already charged along with interest, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2]       OPs filed written statement. On merits, it is stated that the water meter connection of the complainant was got checked and was found OK.  As such, the complainant was advised to get the underground leakage checked on deposit of fee. Accordingly, the complainant deposited the necessary charges with the OPs on 04.09.2008 and the OP Department tested the meter, as per the procedure, and found that the water meter of the complainant is 9% fast.  Accordingly, the complainant was given the credit of 9% fast meter w.e.f. 15.7.2007 to 15.01.2009, based on the formula, and thus an amount of Rs.5280/- which were found to be charged in excess, were credited to the account of the complainant. Inadvertently, the credit of Rs.5280/- was given twice by the OPs, which the complainant silently utilized for his gains. It is submitted that when the OPs noticed such error and wanted to claim the excess of Rs.5280/- from the complainant, the complainant cooked up the false story and started alleging the claim on the basis of defective meter ever since 2004. The request of the complainant cannot be acceded to being beyond the period of limitation as well as there is no cogent reasons to support the versions of the complainant. It is pleaded that when the meter was got checked and found fast, the benefit of the same has been extended to the complainant. Now the complainant is trying to stake his claims on the basis of the report of the laboratory. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5]       The dispute in the present complaint is that the OPs had illegally charged excessive water bills and inspite of bringing the same to their notice, neither they refunded the excess amount charged nor adjusted the same in future water bills.

6]       On the contrary, the OPs asserted that on checking the water meter of the complainant, the same was found to be fast, as such the due benefit of the same had been extended to him, based on the formula. 

7]       After going through the facts & circumstances of the case, hearing the pleadings of the parties and perusing the documents on record, it has been made out that it is an admitted case of the parties that in response to the complaint made by the complainant, his water meter was got checked and found 9% fast on 11.11.2008.  It is also admitted by the parties that the benefit of the fast running water meter was also extended to the complainant for the period 15.7.2007 to 15.1.2009, based on the formula.  Thus, the credit of Rs.5280/-, which were found to be charged in excess, was granted to the complainant against his account.

8]       The main contention of ld.Counsel for the complainant is that the OPs had not overhauled the water bills of the complainant for the period from Jan., 2004 to January, 2009, vide which they had charged the complainant in excess by Rs.1,56,000/- i.e. 60 months @ Rs.2600/- per month, which is a deficiency on their part.  Moreover, they have wrongly charged fixed rate of water bills, even though the consumption was very low.

9]       On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for OPs have vehemently denied that the complainant has been charged excessively since Jan., 2004 to Jan., 2009.  Rather, it is contended that in the year 2007, when the meter of the complainant was found to be running fast by 9%, the due benefit thereof was granted to him. It is also contended that no complaint or representation has been received from the complainant in the year 2004 to 2006.  It is also argued that since the meter was recording below the minimum rates for the commercial premises, therefore, the complainant was charged with minimum rates of Rs.550/- for SCO (as per Water Bye-Laws).

10]      The onus to prove the excess charges made by the OPs for the period Jan., 2004 to Jan., 2009 was squarely lies on the complainant.  However, the complainant has not been able to prove this version by way of placing on record any cogent and authentic document. In absence of any such authentic and concrete document, it cannot be said that the OPs had charged excess amount from the complainant towards water consumer from the 2004 to 2009.

11]      The complainant has further failed to prove that his water consumption was lower than the minimum fixed rates.  This too is a bald assertion, which lacks authenticity in the absence of any substantial document to prove the same.

12]      Having judged from every angle and after going through facts & circumstances of the case, we came to the conclusion that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The allegations made by the complainant do not stand in the absence of any plausible justification and concrete evidence.  Therefore, we do not find any merit, weight or substance in the present complaint.  The same is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.

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