First Appeal No. 2009/786
(Arising from the order dated 15.09.2009 passed by District Forum(North) Tis Hazari, Delhi, in Complaint Case No.1257/2006)

Dr. Mahesh Chand Jain, … Appellant/Complainant,

C-4/18, Model Town, in person

Delhi

Versus

1. The Chief Executive Officer ... Respondent/OP.
Delhi Jal Board,
Varunalaya Phase-II,
Jhandewalan, New Delhi.


2. Zonal Revenue Officer

Civil Lines Zone,

Delhi Jal Board, Rajpur Road,

Delhi.

CORAM

Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President

Sh. M.L. Sahni … Member



1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?



2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President(ORAL)

1. The complainant who lived in a premises bearing No.C-4/18, Model Town, Delhi comprising 63 sq. mtrs. had a water connection No.8070-K provided by the OP Delhi Jal Board. His meter stopped functioning. The OP did not change the meter despite his requests and charged since 28.12.1993 from the complainant on the basis of 60 Kilo Litre average monthly consumption of water, while according to him actual consumption was 14.2 Kilo litre per month and as per rules of the built up area, he could have been charged with Rs.40/- per month. The OP thus charged, more than Rs.4170/- which were actual charges from the complainant, till the OP revised the bill after 11.08.2005. He therefore filed a complaint before District Forum claiming following reliefs against the OP: -

(i) To call for records of the respondents to determine excess money paid.



(ii) The respondents may be asked to refund the excess money demanded on account of water charges +5-% amounting to Rs.16627.83 after deducting unpaid demand amounting to Rs.1740/-. Net amounting to Rs.14887.83.



(iii) The respondents may be asked to issue bills on the basis of actual meter reading.



(iv) The respondent may be asked to levy service charges @Rs.40/- per month.



(v) The respondents may be asked to raise bills giving due consideration to various slabs in their tariff schedule.



(vi) The respondents may be asked to compensate losses suffered on account of mental, physical and financial harassment to the extent of Rs.25,000/-

(vii) The respondent may further be directed to bear legal expenses suffered by the complainant to the extent of Rs.2000/-.


2. The OP opposed the claim of the complainant and alleged that when the complainant’s meter stopped functioning and it was brought to the notice of the OP, the complainant was asked to have a new meter on his own, and the amount incurred could have been sought refunded from the OP, but the complainant did not do so. The OP therefore charged average calculation based on past 12 months consumption pattern of water, till meter was replaced in the month of September 2005. The OP alleged that when the discrepancy was discovered by it in the bill dated 12.08.2005, the bill was revised and the charges were claimed as per tariff approved for the actual area of the premises, which for water was supplied. The OP denied any deficiency of service on its part praying dismissal of the complaint.

3. The District Forum vide order dated 15.09.2009 found the OP deficient in service, on the reasoning, that the OP had not charged on the basis of actual area of the premises and levied fixed charges at a higher rate and therefore imposed a compensation of Rs.2000/- plus costs Rs.1000/- on the OP payable to the complainant.

4. The District Forum repelled the contention of the complainant that the excess charges which the OP had received should be made good to the complainant on the ground that the charges claimed for the period of 90s were time barred and secondly that the tariff was revised by the OP according to area occupied by the complainant.

5. That is what brings the appellant in appeal before this Commission.

6. We have heard the appellant in person at the stage of admission.

7. Initially the bill prepared by the respondent, Delhi Jal Board was erroneous because it was not prepared according to the built up area but it was subsequently rectified. The claim for refund of the excess charges received pertained to the year 90s was apparently a time barred claim as rightly held by the District Forum. It is also to be taken into account that the respondent Delhi Jal Board informed the complainant that water meter had to be changed and since water meters were not available in their stock, he could get water meter installed at the cost of respondent, Delhi Jal Board but the appellant did not do so.

8. Due to initial fault of the respondent, Delhi Jal Board, in preparing wrong bill, the District Forum has awarded Rs.2000/- as compensation for this lapse to the complainant and so also the quantum of costs which in the circumstance are adequate and call for no interference.

9. Appeal has therefore no force and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

10. 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.

11. Announced on the 02nd day of December 2009.