Shri Deep Ram S/O late Shri Lal Chand,

Resident of Kainth K Jubbar,

Totu, Shimla, HP.
…. Complainant.
Versus

Municipal Corporation Shimla

Through its Commissioner, The Mall, Shimla, HP.

…Opposite Party
O R D E R:

Surshwar Thakur (District Judge) President (Oral):- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that he is subscriber of domestic water connection bearing Account No.611, which is installed at his residential premises aforesaid. It is averred that he received a water bill for the period 30.09.2005 to 11.03.2006 amounting to Rs.2624/-, vide Annexure C-1. He further proceeded to aver that the OP has issued the bill aforesaid for the period when there was no water supply to his premises, whereas the OP, was requested vide letter Annexure C-II of having, no water, but they did nothing in the matter. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to quash the bill in dispute.

2. The OP in its written version to the complaint, raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint, lack of cause of action and status of the complainant as a consumer. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is subscriber of water connection. It is denied that the complainant was not getting sufficient water supply to his residential premises. It is contended that the bill in dispute was raised on minimum rate basis, hence there was no deficiency in service on their part.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record of the case meticulously.

4. The complainant is aggrieved by the water bill issued by the OP and which is annexed as Annexure C-1. The complainant contends that he, had not been supplied water by the OP, hence, water tariff as raised in the disputed bill, is, unwarranted. Besides, he also contends that, in, the bill, the old as well, as, new meter reading, there is parity, therefore signifying no consumption of water, as such, the tariff as raised, is, contended to be unwarranted, also, on that score. The counsel for the complainant while fortifying his contention that the OP has not supplied water to him, has relied upon Annexure C-II, which has remained un-replied by the OP. In case, there was no water supply by the OP to the premises where the complainant is residing, then, obviously, the act of the OP in rising water tariff was unwarranted.

5. However, in further substantiation, of, the fact that no water supply was afforded to his premises by the OP, the complainant has not annexed the bill immediately preceding to the bill sought to be quashed by this Forum, therefore, his averment may not be truthful. Hence, to put the controversy at rest, it is deemed fit and appropriate that when there is a possibility, of, the the meter installed at the premises of the complainant by the OP having stopped functioning, hence, showing parity in old as well, as, new meter reading, as also, when it has been stated hereinabove, that the complainant having failed to annex water bills immediately preceding to the disputed bill, so as, to, fully substantiate his contention that no water was supplied in his premises for the past one & half years, that, the OP shall conduct an inquiry and in case, it is found that, no, water bills were raised by the OP for past one & half years, as narrated in Annexure C-2, then, in that eventuality, it shall not compel the complainant to pay the bill as raised in Annexure C-1.

However, in case, it is found that bills had been raised by the OP immediately preceding to issuance of Annexure C-1, then, such issuance of bills while signifying the fact that the complainant had been consuming water, hence, was liable to make payment of water tariff, yet, the meter having stopped functioning, the OP shall on the basis of the average of the previous consumption work out the total water tariff for the disputed period, which shall be defrayed to the OP, by the complainant. It is also directed that a new meter shall be installed, by the in place of present one, after completion of the codal formalities by the complainant. With these observations, the complaint stands disposed of.

sir,
i am resident of chapslee estate, lakkar bazar, Shimla, i would like to bring some inconveniences of corporation in your notice through this esteem site that here in our locality there is no proper system of sweeper and garbage collector.
I herd about your door to door service so it respond for couple of days and after that the whole procedure vanished so presently there is no sweeper or MC worker to collect the garbage now a days we have to face the problem, so i hope so that as soon as possible you will take some strict action regarding this problem.
your sincerely
chalpslee estate
lakkar bazar shimla