Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
Ram Prakash vs Delhi Jal Board on 25 September, 2001
ORDER
R.K. Anand, Member
1. This case is being taken up in the revised list after having been passed over, at the request of an employee of the respondent who is present in the Court. He stated that the respondent's Advocate was on his way and would be appearing in this case. The cause of action giving rise to the present enquiry is the dispute over the bill for water consumption. On the last date of hearing, the learned Advocate for the respondent was directed to arrange a meeting between the applicant/complainant and the concerned officer of the respondent and to revise the bill suitably so that the applicant/complainant may make the payment. Although the respondent is not represented today by its Advocate, it has been stated before us by the applicant/complainant that the meeting was held and the dispute regarding the bill was also more or less resolved. It has been further stated that, the respondent is willing to revise the bill for the period from 14.6.1991 to 11.10.1993, on the basis of average consumption, which works out to 77 kilo litres her month and the period from 11.10.1993 to 24.1.1995, on the basis of actual consumption. According to the applicant/complainant, cash payments for these two periods, have already been made. He further states that the payment for the period commencing from 24.1-1995 till date can be made on the basis of the average consumption which works out to 48 kilo litres per month. The applicant/complainant also states that he has already made part-payment for the aforesaid period also on this basis.
2. The above settlement appears to be reasonable. However, if for a part of the period, payment has been made by the applicant/ complainant on the basis of average consumption of 48 kilo litres per month, it stands to reason that the same basis should be applicable to the remaining period also and he should be billed accordingly. That takes care of the payment for the entire period about which there is a dispute.
3. As regards the discount, it is for the respondent to treat the applicant/complainant at par with other consumers and whatever rebate is given to the other consumers, the same should be allowed, in fairness, to the applicant/ complainant also. The applicant/complainant is satisfied with the above dispensation and he states that he does not wish to pursue the enquiry. In view of the above, this order of ours will dispose of the present proceeding, U.T.P.E. 41 / 2000, and accordingly, the Notice of Enquiry stands discharged.
The respondent is directed to comply with this order, within six weeks from the date, of its receipt and also file an affidvait by way of compliance.