State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New Delhi Municipal Corporation vs T.R. Enterprises on 1 October, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.) Date of decision :01.10.2007 Appeal No. A-13/04 (Arising from order dated 21.5.2003 passed by the District Forum ,(New Delhi ) Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Compliant case No. C-1020/2001) New Delhi Municipal Corporation Palika Kendra, Sansad Marg, New Delhi -110023 Appellant Through Shivani Kashyap, Advocate Versus T.R. Enterprises, M-132, Adinath Shree House, Opp. Super Bazar, New Delhi 110028 Respondent CORAM Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member1
Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the Judgement.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not.
Justice J.D. Kapoor (Oral)
1. Admittedly the respondent obtained possession of premises No. M-132 Connaught Circus, New Delhi on rent from its owner on 26.11.80 and prior to that there was another tenant Sh. Ranjit Singh and a water connection was installed by the appellant in the name of said tenant Sh. Ranjit Singh. He received the bill in the name of Sh. Ranjit Singh in May, 1993 having arrears outstanding and accordingly he informed the appellant to disconnect water connection. Respondent denied that any bill was ever received by him till May, 1993 and that he had been using underground water and not water provided by the appellant NDMC. Faced with the demand of bill raised in 1998 the respondent filed the instant complaint for quashing said demand against him.
2. Vide impugned order dated 21st May, 2003 passed by the District Forum, the complaint was allowed on the premises that since water meter is in the name of Sh. Ranjit Singh, the appellant has right to recover the said amount from the Ranjit Singh and not from the respondent. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. Challenging the validity of the order the appellant has conceded that respondent remained silent for 13 long years in spite of having occupied the premises since 1980 and he asked for disconnection of water connection which he was using all these years when the impugned bill was raised.
4. The statement of claims of both the parties to certain extent does not inspire confidence at all. So far as appellant is concerned it did not care to disconnect the water connection inspite of having not received any payment of the bill for 10 long years. No party can be allowed to take advantage of its acts of omission and commission.
Merely because service provider happens to be government authority it cannot enjoy special privilege.
5. It was with a view to inculcate sense of efficiency on the part of authorities that provisions are made in the law that no sum due from any consumer should be recoverable after the period of two years from the date it became due and unless the same continuously shown in the arrears of charges.
6. In the instant case appellant has failed to produce convincing evidence about the service or delivery of the water bill to either Ranjit Singh or to the respondent from May, 1993 . Had it been so it was obligatory upon the appellant to disconnect the water connection for having not received payment of the bill and not to wait for 10 long years. The circumstances of the case itself are sufficient to hold appellant guilty for grossest kind of deficiency in service for recovering the amount due from the consumer for 10 long years. It allowed to accumulate the bill for such a long time without disconnecting the connection
7. Similarly the version of the respondent that it did not use the water provided by the appellant for 10 years and had been using underground water is not worthy of credence. The reason is simple. He had occupied the premises as tenant in the year 1980 and remained silent till 1993. Inspite of the fact that for 13 years he has not been receiving any water bill and using ground water which is against the provision of law. However, it is obligatory on the part of the consumer to use electricity and water provided by the service providers and not through illegal means. It again is very astonishing that the respondent had been sleeping over for 10 long years. If he had not received the bill, he should have approached the appellant company for getting information as to why water bills are not being sent to him.
8. Taking overall view of the matter we partly allow the appeal by directing the appellant to raise the revised bills for payment by the respondent to make payment for two years preceding from May, 1993 without LPSC.
9. F.D.R./ Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
10. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Announced on the Ist October, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Rk .