Naresh Chander complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite party praying that complaint may kindly be accepted and illegal bill dated 01.06.2016 of Rs.19,490/- issued by the opposite party may kindly be set aside. Complainant has also claimed Rs.10,000/- for the physical harassment and mental agony, stress including Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.  

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that long time back he was availing the water supply facility being provided by the opposite party to his residential premises and was paying the water supply dues to the opposite party regularly without any default but due to erratic, irregular and improper water supply system he got disconnected the same being dissatisfied on the request by the authorized dealer/person i.e. M/s Ashoka Traders Gurdaspur c/o Geeta Bhawan Road, Gurdaspur through him on 02.09.1995 and submitted the letter to the opposite party and as such duly informed them regarding the disconnection of water supply connection to his residence on 02.09.1995 and after that no water supply facility being availed by him and as such there was no question of payment of any water supply bills or charges when there existed no water supply connection to his residence. It was pleaded that complainant was surprised when he received the demand of Rs.9755/- vide notice dated 04.11.2008 and he replied the said notice on 22.03.2009 by appraising the opposite party that his water supply connection had been disconnected on 02.09.1995 by authorized agent and any demand thereafter was illegal, uncalled and in breach and in violations of provisions of Municipal Act and law but opposite party did not give any reply to the notice dated 22.03.2009 of the complainant and kept silent. It was further pleaded that opposite party again raised demand of Rs.16,340/- through bill dated 01.12.2013 from the complainant and complainant again replied and served notice on 07.02.2014 again fully appraising the opposite party regarding the same facts and regarding earlier notice dated 22.03.2009 and requested them to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.16,340/- but opposite party again did not give any response to the complainant’s notice and kept silent. Complainant personally visited the office of the opposite party and made request on 09.07.2016 to withdraw the illegal demand and above said bills but to no effect. It was also pleaded that opposite party without giving any satisfactory reply again issued a vague and illegal bill dated 01.06.2016 amounting to Rs.19,490/- which was illegal, uncalled, arbitrary, violative of rules, provisions, instructions of Municipal Law. It was next pleaded that complainant again requested the opposite party to withdraw their illegal notice and demand of Rs.19,490/- but the opposite party did not give any  heeds to the genuine requests of the complainant and he also suffered a loss of Rs.10,000/- at the hands of the opposite party, hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite party who appeared through their counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint against the opposite party is not maintainable. It was next pleaded that the municipal council was asking for payment of arrears of water supply from the complainant and as such there was no deficiency in service and complaint is misconceived. On merits, it was stated that provisions of Consumer Protection Act are not applicable in this case. It was denied that complainant had submitted any application or otherwise as alleged for disconnection of the water supply. It was denied that the water supply connection of the complainant had been disconnected. Complainant is liable to pay the amount in question and he was advised to submit an application to the M.C. Gurdaspur for getting the water supply disconnected and the demand of arrears in question is not in any way deficiency of service as alleged. Other averments made in the complaint have denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

4.      Counsel for the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C13, affidavit of Sh.Atal Sharma Ex.C1 and affidavit of Sh.Des Raj Plumber Ex.C3, copy of letter of request for disconnection of connection on 02.09.1995 Ex.C2 along with other documents Ex.C4 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.       Sh.Devi Sharan Clerk of opposite party had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party.

6.       We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant had been a long time consumer of ‘water’ with the opposite party service provider/ municipal committee but having fed up with the erratic water supply had got his water-connection surrendered and supply disconnected on 02.09.1995. However, on 04.11.2008 to his shock he received a Water Bill for Rs 9,755/- so he did approach the OP officials and apprised them of his disconnection on 02.09.1995 but they did not admit his claim and continued raising water supply Bills with the last one being for Rs 19,490/- dated 01.06.2016 and that prompted the present compliant.

7.       We find that the complainant has proved his case by producing affidavit Ex.C1 of   Sh.Atal Sharma of M/s Ashoka Traders who had disconnected the said water connection in the year 1995 by recognizing the signatures of his late father Sh. Ashok Sharma on the complainant’s application dated 02.09.1995 (Ex.C2) addressed to the OP committee duly advising of the disconnection. Further, affidavit Ex.C3 stands deposed of by Sh. Des Raj Plumber (with Ashoka Traders) confirming disconnection by him on 02.09.1995 and Ex.C13 affidavit by the complainant deposing the contents of the complaint. Also, Ex.C4 to Ex.C12 do support and prove the complainant’s allegation of arbitrarily drawn Bills & inter-se letters (legal notices) as exchanged/drawn/served etc.

8.       On the other hand, the OP municipal committee has simply produced its affidavit Ex.OP1 of its clerk Sh. Devi Sharan, who has simply denied the complainant’s assertions but without producing any cogent evidence and/or even any logic to its favour and thus his depositions do amount to one bald statement only.      

9.       In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the opposite party municipal committee E.O. to withdraw/ set-aside the impugned Bill(s) drawn for the period after disconnection date i.e., 02.09.1995. However, the municipal committee shall be at liberty to recover all the evidenced arrears from the present complainant outstanding against his past water-connection but for the period before the disconnection date i.e., 02.09.1995, only. The litigating parties shall themselves bear their costs, here.   

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                             (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                              President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                            (Jagdeep Kaur)

DEC. 06, 2017.                                                                          Member               

*YP*