Delhi

StateCommission

FA/90/2014

D.J.B. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINOD KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

27 Aug 2014

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI
Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
 
First Appeal No. FA/90/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission)
 
1. D.J.B.
VARUNALAYA BUILDING KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI-110005.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. VINOD KUMAR
R/O JA-3C, ASHOK VIHAR, PHASE-I DELHI-110052.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRESIDENT
 HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                       Date of Decision:   27.08.2014

                                                            

FA - 90/2014

(Arising from the order dated 29.10.2013 passed by District Forum, North West, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 978/09)

 

Delhi Jal Board,

Through its Chairman,

Varunalaya Building,

Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110005.

 

 

 

 

            

…………… Appellant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vinod Kumar,

R/o JA-3C,

Ashok Vihar,

Phase-I,

Delhi-110052.

 

Vs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ……….. Respondent

 

 

 

 

Coram

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

SalmaNoor,

Member

 

NP Kaushik, Member(Judicial)

 

 

 

1.

Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 

2.

To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial) 

    
                                          

 

  1. We have heard Shri Naresh Sharma, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Vinod Kumar, the respondent who is present in person.
  2. The appellant has challenged the order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum – North West, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in complaint case No. 978/09.  The operative portion of the order is  as under:

“The OP has no control over the installation of water tank on the roof and, therefore, no direction in this regard can be given to it.  In the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the OP as under:-

  1. Make regular inspections and ensure that its main water line in the building in question is not interfered with.
  2. Raise a water bill on the complainant on consumption basis after taking a period of 6 months for the purpose of assessment.  The OP shall not levy any late payment charges/surcharge on the said bill.
  3. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.”
  1. The appellant has no grievance as regards direction No. 1.  As regards direction No. 2, the Consumer Forum has directed the appellant to raise a water bill on consumption basis after taking a period of 6 months for the purpose of assessment.  As regards the water bill of Rs. 17304/- raised on the complainant/respondent for a period of about 6 years, we find no illegality in the impugned order of District Forum. 
  2. The appeal stands dismissed.
  3. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities.
  4. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor]
MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.