Delhi

North East

CC/164/2012

BHUPENDER KR. SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ZONAL REVENUE OFFICER (DJB) - Opp.Party(s)

26 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 164/12

 

 

CORUM:-      Hon’ble President N.K.Sharma

                        Hon’ble Member Nishat Ahmad Alvi

 

In the matter of:

 

		Bhupender Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Shankar Lal Sharma R/o A-89/1 Gali No. 1, Brahampuri Delhi-110053		Complainant
		Versus
	1       2	Zonal Revenue Officer (DJB) North-East 2, Gali No. 14, Shanti Mohalla Old Seelampur, Delhi-110031   Director (Revenue) Delhi Jal Board Varunalya, Phase-2, Karol Bagh New Delhi-110005		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		28-04-2012
			DATE OF DECISION      :		26-10-2016

 

N.K.SHARMA, PRESIDENT:-

ORDER

1. As per complaint, in the year 2005 and 2007 Ad-hoc Bills vide numbers 10487, 59131, 121557 and 169017 were issued by OP on false plea that the premises were locked. Another bill vide number 59652 included service tax of Rs. 224/- without any justification. While Bill No. 261181 dated 10.3.2008 was raised showing adjustment of Rs. 200/- without giving any particulars of deduction. Oral complaint to this effect was made but complainant paid all these bills. Besides, an already paid bill No. 160073 dated 9.12.2009 is shown as arrears in further bill dated 2.7.2010 vide No, 33716. On complaint and continuous follow-ups OP revised this bill on 18.8.2010 requiring complainant to pay Rs. 1395/- which the complainant paid. On complainant’s insistence to show how this amount is worked out OP has threatened to disconnect the water. Besides there is one more bill, issued in between the bills dated 9.12.2009 and 2.7.2010 which complainant has not received. Another bill dated 19.10.2010 vide No. 97459 also show arrears of Rs. 3043/-. Not only this it is received from OP only two days in advance than the last date of its payment. Complaint to this effect vide diary No. 269 and its reminder vide diary No. 1181 dated 8.11.2010 and 29.4.2011 respectively were lodged with OP but with no response/result. Rather OP issued another bill dated 21.1.2012 vide No. 403208 showing arrears of Rs. 4411/- OP is issuing further bills imposing late payment, sewer and self imposed charges while sewer is still not fully operational.  Complainant has prayed for revised bill as per water consumption, after deducting amount of already paid bill no. 160073 dated 9.12.2009 late payment charges, surcharge, sewer maintenance charges and additional expenses alongwith Rs. 88,000/- for social, mental, physical and financial damages and litigation cost of Rs. 11,000/-.

 

2. OP by filing its reply has challenged maintainability of complaint, pleading that (I) complaint is barred by limitation being filed after 2 years (II) Mandatory requirement of issuing statutory notice u/s 96 of the Delhi Water Board Act, 1998 is not fulfilled. (III) Remedy of appeal u/s 97 of the Delhi Water Board Act, 1998 is already available to the complainant.

 

3. On merits OP has asserted that as per meter diary the premises was found locked. Hence Ad-hock bills were issued. Regarding issuing of numbers of bills without justification, OP had submitted that it has issued 29 bills and not 25. OP has also submitted that as per Meter Book, premises found locked on 18.08.2007 and 22.10.07 when Meter Reader visited the premises for recording the details. Later bills were raised on average basis for the reason that the meter was found stopped. Adjustment of Rs. 200/- in bill for the period 17.04.2007 to 02.01.2008 is correct. Payment against bill No. 33716 dated 02.07.2010 of Rs. 1,395/- on 18.08.2010 is admitted but it was not the amount of revised bill rather part payment, as allowed by OP, against the bill dated 02.07.2010. Contention of issuing of a Bill in between Bills dt. 9.12.2009 and 2.7.2010 is admitted by the OP further submitting that the same was duly served upon the consumer. Arrears of Rs. 3,043/- in the bill dated 19.10.2010 is asserted by the OP stating that it was due as the complainant failed to make any payment after August 2008. Complaint and its reminder dated 8.11.2010 and 29.04.2011 regarding bill dated 21.01.2012 is acknowledged by OP stating that necessary action had already been taken on this complaint and the bill was found correct.

 

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits by way of evidence and relevant documents.

 

5. Heard and perused the record.

 

6. Though complainant raises objections against certain Bills issued on Ad-hock basis and certain Bills on average basis, Beside levy of service charge in a particular Bill and adjustment of Rs. 200/- in another bill, but the prayer made in the complaint is mainly against double charging of Bill No. 160073/- dated 9.12.2009. However as jist of the complaint is to show careless and negligent attitude of the officials of OP and harassment of the complainant at their hands, we have to go through each and every Bill and document complainant relies on, to find out the truth. 

 

7. In support of its contention that reason for issuing Ad-hoc Bill was that at that time Premises were locked, OP has placed on record.  Exhibit DW1/B - the meter diary, which shows that on 15.4.2005, 18.8.2007 and 22.10.2007 premises were locked. But these dates are different than the dates of the Ad-hoc Bills in question. Not only this, these are also not nearby dates. Payment of these adhoc bills as claimed by complainant also remain undisputed as though complainant produced no receipts thereof but OP has also not specifically denied the same. Similarly it is also clear that with respect to surcharge, OP’s contention, that it was levied later on as the same was made applicable after December 2004 only, is not objected to by the complainant.

 

8. Regarding average bills OP has justified the same on two grounds (i) meter was found stopped (ii) as per DJB Rules for the premises up to 200 sq yards meter is to be billed on average 20 KL per month. Though in support of this fact OP has placed no evidence on record but there is also no objection by the complainant for the same.

 

9. With respect to double billing of Rs. 1764/- against Bill No. 160073 even after denial of its payment, in written statement OP has acknowledged the same, stating that payment was received on 23.12.2009 but due to mistake of out sourcing agencies  M/s Zoom Develops the same could be reflected only in the bill of September 2011 dated 27.9.2011.

 

10.  Rs. 1395/- received by OP as per Ex CW1/3 is again carried forward in Ex CW1/4 which shows entire amount of bill, as arrears, against which this Rs. 1395/- were received by OP. We also find last revised bill dated 18.10.2013 which shows total LPC rebate of Rs. 2,538/- rebate of total arrears of Rs. 1635/-. Regarding payment of Rs. 1,764/- OP in its written arguments has claimed that this amount has been adjusted in the bill for the month of Sep. 2011. But OP has not placed on record bill of September 2011 in which it claims to adjust this amount. OP has also not been able to give details of account of the arrears it claims accruing against complainant. OPs plea of no payment after 2008 is false by its own admission of payment of bill dated 9.12.2009

 

11. On the basis on above findings we find that for about 2 years OP kept complainant harassing for payment of Bill No. 160073 dated 9.12.2009 which is so posted only in September 2011 as paid. However, connection continued. Thus though the service was not stopped by OP and disputed bill seems adjusted but officials of OP acted arbitrarily and in a negligent manner while issuing Bills leading to harassment to the complainant and deficiency in service.  Thus  we hold guilty to the OP only for deficiency in service and direct it to (i)  issue a revised bill justifying all dues if not paid after deducting specially amount of            Rs. 1764/- of Bill No. 160073 dated 09.12.2009 and all LPSC and other charges levied for alleged non payments; and to pay

2. Compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only)
3. Litigation cost of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) to the complainant.

 

12.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

 

13.  File be consigned to record room.

 Announced on: - (26.10.2016)

 

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi) Member