State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi Jal Board vs S.K. Chaudhary on 11 July, 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: 11.07.2007 Appeal No.07/382 (Arising from the order dated 17.02.2007 passed by District Forum(East) Saini Enclave, Delhi in Complaint Case No.1066/2006) Delhi Jal Board .. Appellant. Through Zonal Revenue Officer, through Mr. Kapil Gaur, ( East II), Delhi. Advocate. Versus Sh. S.K. Chaudhary .. Respondent. L-79, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor, ... President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President(ORAL)
1. Respondent was having a borewell connection in his house, which he constructed in the year 1978-79. In the year 1990 , appellant laid down water pipelines in the area and consequently the respondent obtained water connection. As the respondent wanted to raise further construction and replacement of water pipelines, he applied for disconnection of supply on 24.12.2004. the supply was disconnected on 31.12.2004. Inspite of this the respondent received a bill in July 2005 for the period 22.10.2004 to 02.07.2005 for Rs.11,315/- wit the warning that connection may be disconnected if the bill is not paid. His request to revise the bill for charging normal water charges and withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- was declined by the appellant. Consequently he filed the instant complaint before District Forum seeking aforesaid reliefs.
2. Vide impugned order dated 17.02.2007 the District Forum, allowed the complaint in the following terms:
(i) to revise the bill of the complainant charging normal water charges upto 31.12.2004.
(ii) all payment made by the complainant upto date shall be credited in the revised bill.
(iii) OP is directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.10,000/- in the bill dated 08.08.2005 forthwith. However, it is clarified that it will open to OP to take action ona the notice dated 18.11.2004 after issuing fresh notice of appearance to the complainant and by way of speaking order as per rules of OP.
3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. Main grievance of the appellant is with regard to the withdrawal of payment of Rs.10,000/- in the bill dated 08.08.2005. Counsel for the appellant has justified this demand which according to him was because of the water used by the respondent in raising additional construction of the house and not as penalty.
5. After perusing the impugned order, we find that the District Forum had asked the officer of the appellant as to the outcome of the notice served by them upon the respondent that since he was using the water of DJB for construction purpose which was highly objectionable he should explain the reason, but the appellant did not assist the District Forum in this regard. District Forum has returned the finding after perusing the bill dated 08.08.2005 that Rs.10,000/- was debited not because of construction or reconstruction penalty but as actual average of 30 months. Appellant could not explain the material ambiguity in their version and the documents. So much so the appellant even did not substantiate as to which authority had passed the order imposing the aforesaid penalty.
6. It was also observed by the District Forum that though the appellant refer order of ZE(W)(V) in every correspondence with the respondent dated 03.02.2006, 30.04.2006 yet the appellant miserably failed to place relevant documents inspite of sufficient opportunities.
7. Grievance of the appellant is that the District Forum has wrongly construed the amount of Rs.10,000/- as penalty and also misconstrued the said notice asking the respondent to explain the reason within 15 days as to why he was using the water of DJB for construction purpose, which was highly objectionable. After perusal of the aforesaid two documents and the failure of the respondent to give the reply to the notice calling upon him to explain was to why he was using water of DJB for construction purpose, it needs to be reconsidered by the District Forum as according to the counsel this demand was never shown either as penalty or was raised for using water for construction purposes.
8. In our view respondent needs to be given opportunity to show as to why he did not respond or reply to the notice and what was his reply in this regard. However, counsel for the appellant also contended that two more neighbours of the respondent were placed in similar situation and have also made the payment but the respondent did not follow their suit nor did he come with the explanation as to why he was using the water of DJB for construction purpose.
9. Foregoing reasons persuade us to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the District Forum for deciding it afresh after calling upon the respondent to show reason as to why he did not give explanation for using the water of DJB for construction purpose and also an opportunity to the appellant to show and prove that this demand was raised on account of using the water for construction purpose and not as penalty or towards the bill on actual consumption basis.
10. The appellant shall appear before District Forum on 10.08.207 for the aforesaid purpose.
11. 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.
Announced today on 11th day of July 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri