27.01.2015.
MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.09.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Burdwan in Complaint Case No. 100/2010 dismissing the same on contest without cost.
Being aggrieved by the said order the Complainant has preferred the instant appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the Ld. District Forum erred in appreciating the actual amount of discrepancies in the matter due to improper calculation of the figures in disputes and considered wrongly the discrepancy as “negligible”.
The case of the Complainant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, is that the O.P., being the water supplier to the buildings of the locality against payment of consideration imposes anomalous charges to different building complexes for supply of water. The Complainant has further stated that her husband got specific information from the O.P. in reply to applications filed by him under RTI Act that the O.P. calculates the water supply charges on the basis as given below :-
- Per flat i.e. number of head is assumed to be four.
- Per head per day water supply is considered to be 135 Ltrs.
- The price per kilo liter (i.e. 1000 ltrs.) is Rs.7/-.
The Complainant stated that the O.P. charged Rs.28,028/- for the water supply for the year 2009 to 2010 to Lords Tower in which she resides instead of Rs.27,594/- which should be charged as per their own calculation. The Complainant has specifically alleged that the O.P. imposed higher charges for supply of water in Lords Tower in comparison with the ‘Swapna Apartment’ and ‘Stavak Apartment’ for the same since the O.P. charges Rs.3225/- for one quarter for ‘Swapna Apartment’.
The Complainant has stated that she met the O.P. – authorities on several occasions to wipe out the discrepancies as well as to have uniformity in charges for water supply to the different buildings of the locality but all were in vain. Hence, she filed the petition of complaint before the Ld. District Forum praying for direction upon the O.P. to charge a just and fair price for its water supply to the ‘Lords Tower’ building in uniformity with the other buildings as mentioned above, to pay Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation and to pay the cost of litigation.
The O.P. contested the case and filed W. V. denying and disputing all material allegations stating inter alia, that the water charges are imposed according to the occupancy of the flat owners and the procedure followed by the Corporation. The O.P. specifically stated that water charges for Rs.28,028/- from April 2009 to March, 2010 was made on round figure on the basis of treating the volume of water as 11 KL per day in respect of the “Lords Tower”. The O.P. has specifically stated that considering the occupancy of the flat owners and procedure followed by the Corporation water supply bill for “Swapna Apartment” for the period April, 2010 to June, 2010 was raised for Rs.9,009/- which is not less than the water charges of “Lords Tower”. The O.P. has further stated that the O.P. does not charge much less for water supply to the “Stabak Apartment” and, there is no anomaly in imposing charges for water supply to the buildings of the locality. Accordingly, the O.P. prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
In course of argument Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the Respondent – Municipality sent inflated bills for water supply to the “Lords Tower” in comparison with the “Swapna Apartment” and “Stabak Apartment”.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that it is not a consumer dispute since the Complainant has not raised any objection regarding the deficiencies in service. Ld. Advocate has further submitted that there is uniformity in imposing charges for water supply to different buildings as per provision of the Municipal Act. In support of his contention Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has referred to the provisions of Sections 3 to 11 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006.
Having heard submissions made by the parties and on perusal of the papers on record it appears that it is not the case of the Appellant – Complainant that she is not getting the proper service from the Respondent – O.P.
The Appellant has challenged the amount of the bill for water supply prepared by the Municipality urging that it was not prepared on uniform basis. The analogy of preparation of bill in respect of “Swapna Apartment” and “Stabak Apartment” having less amount as argued by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, is not acceptable.
In our considered view there is no case of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
In the result, the appeal fails.
Hence, ORDERED, that the instant appeal is dismissed on contest without cost. The impugned judgment is affirmed.
