Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII, 5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No. 4/dated 06.01.2017
Ajay Aggarwal s/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan Aggarwal
Shop No. A-16, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi-110034 …Complainant
Versus
Delhi Jal Board, (through its C.E.O.)
Varunalaya Ph-II, Jhandewalan, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005 ...Opposite Party
Date of filing 06.01.2017
Date of Order: 05.12.2023
Coram:
Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
ORDER
Inder Jeet Singh , President
1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) –The complainant has grievances to declare water bill of Rs. 1,13,660/- [after rebate the bill is of Rs. 93,454/-] against K. No. 596967000 as null and void, since no water is being consumed in the process of activity (a small tourism office) for business of the complainant; the user will be kept under the domestic category instead of mixed use capacity pursuant to notification number 65 of 7/10-08-015. That is why the complaint was filed for relief claimed besides directions to the OPs to check the meter through independent laboratory and then revised all previous bills as well as to restrain the OP from disconnecting the connection.
1.2. The OP opposed the complaint that there is no deficiency of services and the case of complaint does not fall within notification no. 65, being relied upon by the complainant .
2.1. (Case of complainant) –The complainant is having small tourism office for booking of tickets for tourists at A-13, Saraswati Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi. The complainant has obtained a water connection vide K. NO. 596967000, installed in shop in A-13, Saraswati Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi but no water is being used in the process of activities undertaken for business of complainant.
2.2. As per notification no. 65 dated 7/10.8.2015, the OP had issued resolution no. 211/2015 that consumer who does not use water in the process of activity undertaken, such user will be kept under the domestic category instead of mixed use capacity, thus, complainant comes under the domestic category but the OP is raising bill on commercial tariff, which is illegal and arbitrary. The OPs is required to change the category of use to domestic tariff.
2.3 The complainant received a water bill of Rs.1,13,660/- (having rebate of Rs.20,205/-) and the actual bill payable was Rs. 93,454.27. The Bill was raised under category-II but it should be converted into category-I as consumption of complainant is not for commercially.
The complainant made detailed representation dated 26.11.2016 after receiving the bill but it was not considered by the OP. Moreover, the complainant ought to have been issued notice or personal hearing before raising the bill .
2.4 The reading shown in the meter is on very higher sight, it seems meter is moving very fast as it is not consonance with the consumption. It also seems that meter installed in the premises is not showing accurate reading and meter is moving very fast, which can be ascertained from loading the data. The meter is required to be tested by independent laboratory. That is why, the complaint.
2.5 The complaint is accompanied with copy of bill, copy of representation dated 29.11.2016, copy of office order/notification no. 65 dated 7/10.8.2015 and copy of bill raised.
3.1 (Case of OP)- The OP filed its reply and opposed the complaint that water connection, the subject bill and the premises where connection is installed are matter of record. However, the complainant has commercial connection in the premises and consumption cannot be charged under domestic uses. The notification being relied upon by the complainant does not apply to this case.
3.2. The bill was raised on the basis of actual uses and reading of water meter installed at the premises, however, the bill raised is of last one year, since complainant was not paying the bill regularly. The bill was raised as per actual consumption as per reading.
Had the complainant any grievances with respect to working of water meter, he could have always made an application with requisite fee to the concerned Division of Delhi Jal Board and also for testing of meter but the complainant failed to do. The OP has not received any representation of the complainant. There is also no requirement to issue notice or personal hearing before raising the water bill. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. (Replication of complainant) –The complainant filed his rejoinder after reply of OP and complainant asserts that the complainant had commercial connection in the premises needs no reply. He is owner of the premises and he is a registered consumer of the connection. The complaint is correct.
5.1. (Evidence)- The complainant filed his affidavit of evidence, it is in compact form on the lines of complaint coupled with documents relied upon.
5.2. The OP was also given opportunity to lead evidence, however, for want of availing the last opportunity that too subject to cost, the evidence was closed on 22.12.2017 for want of leading evidence.
6.1 (Final hearing)- The parties were given opportunity to file written arguments and make oral submissions. The complainant and the OP have filed their respective written arguments, however, the oral submissions were made by Sh. B. P. Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant but there were no oral arguments on behalf of OP.
6.2. It does not required to reproduce the rival contentions of the parties as the respective case has already been introduced in paragraph 2 & 3 above.
7.1 (Findings)- The contention of both the sides are considered, keeping in view the material on record in the form of pleadings, documents and evidence.
7.2. By taking into account totality of circumstances, the following conclusions are drawn:-
(i) The complainant has proved the subject bill issued in his name and it is showing category-II and premises detail is as “Number of floor-I”.
(ii) The OP in para-3 of its written statement asserted that complainant had commercial connection in the premises, thus water charges cannot be under domestic uses. Further, the notification is not applicable. The complainant in his rejoinder [to para-3 of the written statement] asserts that it needs no reply. Therefore, paragraph 3 of the written statement of OP is deemed to have been admitted by the complainant. Further, there is also no contrary evidence by the complainant to para 3 of the written statement.
(iii) By reading sub-clauses (i) & (ii) above, both are reconciling each other that water connection was taken under category-II/commercial and accordingly bill was raised.
(iv) The office order no. 65 dated 7/10.08.2015 is in respect of ‘abolition of mixed use category’, whereas, the subject connection was for the shop under category-II and the “Number of floor-I”. Therefore, the circular was not applicable.
Otherwise, in office order no. 65 the condition precedent is also mentioned that the owner of such properties will have to get their category changed from mixed use to domestic by furnishing an undertaking, with required supporting documents. There is no proof of any record by the complainant that he had applied for changed of category from mixed use to domestic vis-à-vis there is also no such mentioning in the representation dated 29.11.2016.
(v) The complainant could not prove the mode of proof of sending the representation dated 29.11.2016 (whether registered post or personally or otherwise), as how it was sent to the OP.
Moreover, as per written statement of OP, a consumer may apply with prescribed proper fee for inspection of the meter or its reading or lab. test etc. whatsoever, but the complainant could not establish that ever since he had applied for the same with proper fee.
(vi) The complainant could not prove that he ever since requested to the OP to convert the category of connection from commercial to domestic category. Since it is not so, no cause of action for the complaint.
7.3. In view of the above, the complainant could not establish the allegations of complaint or of deficiency of services or otherwise, against the OP.
However, as per proceedings dated 12.01.2017 the complainant was directed to deposit 50% bill amount to the OP in respect of K. No. 5969670000 and subject to that deposit, the OP was restrained from disconnecting the connection.
7.4 Consequently, the complaint fails. It is dismissed. However, the interim order dated 12.07.2017 is further extended for 30 days from the date of this order for the complainant to do needful regarding deposit of balance bill amount and after 30 days from today, this interim order shall stand vacated ipso facto. With this observation the complaint is disposed off.
8. Announced on this 5th day of December 2023 [अग्रहायण 14, साका 1945].
9. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances besides upload on the website of this Commission.
[Inder Jeet Singh]
President
[Shahina]
Member (Female)
