M/s. Jagan Nath Brij Kumar (P) Ltd. has filed this revision petition against concurrent orders of the District Forum-I UT of Chandigarh and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh. The matter relates to complaint of excess charge in water bills of the Complainant. The Complainant deposited requisite fee on 4.9.2008 for testing for leakage in the water meter line. No leakage was found and hence request for testing of water meter was made. The meter was found to be defective and was changed in January, 2009. In this background, the respondent Municipal Corporation, Public Health and Water Supply Division revised the bill account for the period 15.7.2007 to 15.1.2009 and gave the credit of Rs.5280/- to the account of the Complainant.
2. In the consumer complaint filed subsequently in 2011, alleging that:-
“ That the complainant wrote numerous letters to the OP to refund the excess charges in the water bills received prior to the changing of water meter. It was further brought forth by the complainant that after the change of the water meter, the subsequent water bills were 20% of the earlier bills. The said bills showed what the actual water charges should have been for all the preceding years but for the lenient and non co-operative attitude, the complainant was made to suffer huge financial woes. It is pertinent to mention here that after the installation of the new water meter the complainant usage/ consumption was even lower than the permissible quantity under the minimum fixed charges charged by the OP’s. Copies of letters dated 25.08.2009, 15.10.09 & 01.12.209 are being annexed as Annexure C-9,C-10 & C-11.” 3. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum, which held that:-
“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 complainant 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 charged in excess, was granted to the complainant against his account.”
4. Appeal against dismissal of the complaint has also been dismissed by the State Commission. The State Commission has observed that the application for condonation of delay of 42 days did not have any merit and was therefore, dismissed. It also held that the order passed by the District Forum was based on correct appreciation of evidence and the law did not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
5. We have carefully considered the records submitted by the revision petitionerM/s. Jagan Nath Brij Kumar (P) Ltd. and have heard Mr. Ankit Goyel, Advocate on his behalf. On the question of dismissal of the application for condonation of delay by the State Commission. Learned counsel referred to observations of the State Commission in para 13 of the impugned order and sought to explain the same with reference to the application before the State Commission. The State Commission has observed that the contention in the application that the counsel before the District Forum had received the certified copy of the order of dismissal of the complaint, but had not informed the Complainant until 22.10.2012 about it, has not been accepted by the State Commission. It has been rejected on the ground that the application does not even mention the name of the counsel. Nor does it mention any details of the period during which renovation of his house was going on. Also no supporting document or evidence was placed on record. In this behalf, learned counsel for the revision petitioner conceded during arguments that the affidavit of the concerned Advocate, due to whose conduct delay in filing of appeal had occurred before the State Commission was also not filed. Therefore, in my view the application for condonation of delay has rightly been dismissed by the State Commission.
6. Coming to the merits of the matter, the counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that his case for relief against alleged excess billing for the period earlier to 2007 should also have been considered but relief only for the period 2007 to 2009 has been allowed by the respondent. Earlier in this order, a part of the consumer complaint filed before the District Forum has been cited. It will show that the complaint itself was in the nature of a roving allegation about “what the actual water charges should have been for all the preceding years.” In this behalf, the District Forum has categorically held that the onus to prove excess charge was squarely on the Complainant, but he has not been able to prove it by placing documentary evidence on record.
7. The order of the State Commission, explains the position further in the following terms:-
“Since, the complainant never deposited the fees for checking the water meter, in the years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, it could not claim refund of the alleged excessive water consumption charges, from 2004 onwards, on the ground, that the water meter was defective. In the absence of any report, that the water meter was defective earlier to the date, when it was checked, by the Opposite Parties, the District Forum could not act on conjectures and surmises that it had been defective since 2004. No cogent and convincing evidence was also produced by the complainant, to prove that its water meter had been defective since 2004. The complainant was, thus, not entitled to the refund of the alleged excessive water charges, from 2004 onwards. There was, thus, no deficiency, in service, on the part of the Opposite Parties. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct are affirmed.”
8. It needs to be observed here that neither the revision petition nor the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner have brought out any specific piece of evidence which was placed before the fora below in this behalf and not considered by them. During arguments on the revision petition, learned counsel merely relied upon a few bills pertaining to the period November 2004 to May, 2005 in support of his contention of excess billing. But, as rightly observed by the State Commission, there was not even a request for checking of the water meter with deposit of requisite fee during the relevant period.
9. For the reasons detailed above, I find no merit in this revision petition. It is therefore, dismissed for want of merit. The order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No. 361 of 2012 is confirmed. No orders as to costs.
|
