Delhi

West Delhi

CC/10/339

Southern Star Cooperative (Urban ) Thrift and Credit Society Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI JAL BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

24 Aug 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution:10.05.2010

Complaint Case. No. 339/10                                  Date of order: 24.08.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Southern Star Cooperative (Urban )   Thrift  and Credit Society Ltd., E-Block DDA  Market, MOR Land , New Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi-110060.                                                                                                 

Complainant

VERSUS

 

1.        Executive Engineer/WD-2, DDA B -23  BlockJankpuri, New Delhi 110058 .

                                                                                                            Opposite party no.1

2.        Delhi Jal Board, VarunalayaPh-II, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.

                                                                                                Opposite party no.2

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Southern Star Cooperative (Urban )Thrift  and Credit Society Ltd. named above herein  the  complainant   has  brought the present consumer complaint  under section 12 of the  Consumer  Protection Act  against  Executive Engineer  WD/-2, DDA and  another herein after in short referred as the opposite parties for directions to the opposite parties  to set aside  the water charges bills  issued  by the opposite party no.1 and issue revised  corrected water charges bills at applicable rate of non domestic C-II category

after adjusting  the payments  made by the complainant for water charges, pay Rs. 25,000/-  as compensation for  harassment  and Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation.

Briefly case of the complainant as stated is that the complainant  society was allotted two office premises  no. 1F/110 and 1F/111  at District Centre Janakpuri in the year 2005 and 2007  respectively by the  opposite  party no. 1.  Drinking water supply in District Centre Janakpuri  is made by  the opposite party no. 1 instead of the  opposite party no. 2,  who are supplier of drinking water in almost entire Delhi. 

 That the  opposite party no. 1 in  response to  RTI application of the complainant informed that  water charges  are taken  at the rate  at which  the opposite party no. 2 is charging from the opposite  party no. 1 as per   circular nos. DJB/DOR/Tariff/11.01.2004 dated 29.01.2005 and 07.04.2005.   The opposite party no. 1is also charging 10 % as maintenance charges and 25% as boosting charges wherever boosting is required. The opposite party no. 1 videletter dated 18.12.2008 informed the complainant that the  opposite party no. 1 is supplying water on ‘No profit No loss basis’.  The two office premisesof the complainant falls in category C-II non domestic. The complainant onpayment of Rs.15,000/-(Rs. 5,000 water connection  charges+ Rs. 5,000/-  advance  water charges+ 5,000/- security charges) applied for water connection to the opposite party no. 1 for the two premises  of the complainant  separately.

That the amount of water connection charged by the opposite party no. 1 from the complainant is more than the circular dated 29.01.2005 of the opposite party no. 2 as the charges for water connection for the complainant’s   category is fixed  Rs. 4,000/-.  Whereas theopposite  partyno. 1 has charged  Rs. 5,000/- for each of  the both  connections.   Which amounts unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  The opposite party no. 1 has not adjusted the advance payment of water charges of Rs. 5,000/- in the subsequent bills.  This is another unfair trade practice anddeficiency in service on the party of the opposite party no.1.

Theoppositeparty no. 1 issued bills for water consumption etc. at much higher rate than applicable to C-II non domestic office premises  category of the complainant and also chargedRs.  600/-p.m.   asFixed Access  charges  in lieu of  applicable rate of  Rs. 250 /-  p.m.   The opposite party no. 1 has levied  much higher  rate  for water.  The water charges for C-II non domesticpremises p.m.  is Rs. 10 up to 25 Kls,  Rs. 20  above 25 KLs  to 50 Kls. and Rs. 30/-  for above 50 Kls.   Whereas in the case of complainant the opposite party no. 1 levied 50% additional sewer charges in the bills dated 25.11.2009 and 22.02.2010.

That the complainant paid Rs.10,800/- against bill of the officepremises 1F/110 and Rs. 4800/- for office premises  1F/111 under  compelling circumstances and  protest.  The complainant represented to the opposite party no. 1 to correct the assessment and issue revised bill as per the applicable rate for non domestic premises falling in C-II category.  But tono effect.   Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to set aside  the water charges bills  issued  by the opposite party no. 1 and issue revised  corrected water charges bills at applicable  rate of non domestic C-II  category after adjusting  the payments  made by the complainant for water charges, pay Rs. 25,000/-  as compensation for harassment  and Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation.

After notice the opposite party no. 1 appeared and filedreply  admitting that the opposite party no.1   has charged  Rs.  5,000/- for water  connectionand denied any extra charges.  It is assertedthat the opposite party no. 1 has provided   all internal fittings and fixtures for water supply.  Whereas  in majority  of cases  the end-user provides  the internal fittings and  fixtures and  as per cost  aboveRs. 1,000/- ( difference between  actual  charges of Rs. 5,000/- and stated  charges of Rs. 4,000/-).  The opposite party no. 1 is actually charging the complainant and other similarly placed consumers at discount.  The advance payment will be adjusted only at the time of the  disconnection of water supply .  The opposite partyno. 1 is charging at the rate of Rs.600/-p.m.  as FA  charges  at the  same / identical  rates charged by the opposite party no. 2.  The opposite party  no. 1 is not making even a single paisa in profit .  The opposite party no. 1 is helpless and its  hands are tied as the opposite party no. 2  inspite of  several communication  by the opposite party no. 1 to charge  under  the C-II category  is charging  under C-III category and  as a result   of the same  the opposite party no. 1  is unwillingly  forced to charge its final  consumers  at C-III categoryrates.  The opposite party no. 1 further asserted that it is charging the complainant  exactly  the same amount   being charged by the opposite party no. 2 .  The complainant is quoting  rates as per  category C-II.  Whereas  the opposite  party no. 2 is charging  from the opposite party no. 1 as per  C-III category  and 50%sewer charges as per  point 2.12  on page 3 of the circular dated 29.01.2005.  Bi-monthly  bill is  showing  two months consumption  of 5040 Kls. of water and as per  point 3.8  on page  5  of the  revised  water  tariff  says that “ in case of a common connection  the highest   charges will  apply “.  It is probably/ostensible reason for the opposite party no. 2  charging the opposite party no. 1  at the highest category rate.  All other allegations of the complaint are vehemently denied and prayed for  dismissalof the complaint.

The opposite party no. 2 also filed separate reply raising preliminary objections of maintainability of the complaint,   cause of action, complainant is not a consumer,  complaint is false and frivolous  and prayed for  dismissal of the complaint with cost.   However, on merits the opposite party no.2denied the allegations for want of knowledge.  Butadmitted the rates of water and circulars.  The opposite party no. 2  again  prayed dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant filed rejoinders to the replies of the opposite parties controverting stand taken by the opposite parties and reiterating his stand  taken in the  complaint.  The complainant once again prayed for directions to the opposite parties. 

When the complainant was asked to lead evidence the complainant tendered in its evidence affidavits of Sh. B.Rajenderanauthorized person narrating  facts of the complaint. The complainant also relied upon Annexure-1 Registration Certificate of the complainant no.744 dated 21.04.2006, Annexure -2 minutes of meeting of the complainant  dated  02.05.2010, Annexures-3a and 3b possession slip of office premises 1F/110 and 1F/111,  Annexure-4  information dated 16.10.2008  provided under RTI  application  and circular  dated29.01.2005 and 07.04.2005, Annexure-5  letter dated 18.12.2008 written  by the opposite party no. 1  to the complainant, Annexure -6  receipts dated 10.10.2005 and 06.03.2007, letters  dated 7.10.2005 and 09.02.207, Annexre-7 bills dated  26.02.2008, 22.08.2008, 28.02.2009 23.05.2009.31.08.2009. 25.11.2009.22.02.2010  and25.11.2009., Annexure 8a receipt no.  324396 dated 04.10.2007and  Annexure-8b  receipt no. 356194 dated 13.03.2008, Annexure-9  letters dated 13.03.2008 and 30.10.2008 written by the  complainant to the opposite party no. 1.

When the opposite party no. 1 was asked to lead evidence the opposite party no. 1 tendered in evidenceaffidavit of Sh.  S.C.  Gupta, Executive  Engineer narrating facts of their reply.  They also relied  uponExhibit A-1 letter no. DJB/ZRO(W)II JP/04/ 1741 dated 01.03.2004 written by the opposite party no. 2 to the opposite party no. 1for demand of Rs.  4,59,748/-, letter dated 28.02.2003 and letter  no. 1689 -91 dated 11.03.2003, Exhibit A-2 bill dated 19.08.2009,  Exhibit A-3  circular dated  29.01.2005.

When the opposite party no. 2 was asked to lead evidence the opposite  party  no. 2  tendered in evidence  affidavit of Sh. S.K. Sharma ZRO  narrating facts of theirreply.

The parties have also submitted written arguments in support of their respective pleadings and evidence. 

We have heard  learned  counsel for the parties  and have gone through  the material on the record carefully and thoroughly.

After  having heard  both the  sides,  going through  the contents of the complaint,  replies, affidavits, documents  and written  submissions filed  by the parties it is admitted case  of the parties that the  complainant on 27.09.2005 took possession  of property  no. 1F/110 vide possession slip Annexure 3a and water connection to the complainant was given on 10.10.2005 by the opposite party no. 1 as per Annexure -6.  The opposite party no. 1 raised demand of Rs. 15,000/- for water  connection  of 1F/110 on 7.10.2005.  The amount of Rs. 15,000/- was deposited with the opposite party no. 1 on 07.10.2005 as per demand letter dated 07.10.2005 .  The opposite party no. 1  on 9.02.2007 raised demand  of Rs. 15,000/- for water connection of unit no. 1F/111   and the amount was deposited on the same date.  Therefore, cause of action in favour of the  arose on 07.10.205 and on 09.02.2007 respectively.

  Before proceeding further it is worthwhile to reproduce section 24 A of the Act which runs as under:-

Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act.

 Limitation period -

(1)       The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit  a  complaint  unless it is filed  within  two years from the date  on which cause of action has arisen.

(2)       Notwithstanding anything  contained in sub-section(1), a complaint  may be  entertained  after the period  specified in sub-section(1), if the  complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient  cause for not filing the complaint  within such period. 

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the NationalCommission,   the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be,  records its reasons for condoning such delay.”           

From bare reading of the provisions of section 24(A) of  the  Act  it   is

evident that  a complaint before the District Forum, State Commission  and National Commission is two years from the date of cause of action arose in  favour of the complainant and  a complaint can be entertained by the respective foras after two years from the cause of action if the fora comes to conclusion that there are sufficient  grounds tocondon delay  in filing the complainant.

             Admittedly the complainant  deposited water connection charges  on 07.10.2005 and 09.02.2007.  The present complaint is filed on 10.05.2010 after lapse of a period of more than  three years.  The complainant  has not filed any application for condonation of delay .  Therefore, we have not hesitation  in concluding that the complaint is barred by limitation.

Admittedly the opposite party no.1 is receiving watercharges from the complainant as per Annexure A-3 letter no. DJB/DOR/TARIFF/01-1/2004/4778to 4821 dated 28/29.01.2005. Learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 1 argued that  the opposite party  no. 1  is receiving  water charges from the complainant as per the policy of the opposite parties.  The guidelines formulated  by the   opposite partieshave binding  force.  The opposite party no. 1 has not adopted any unfair trade practice and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no. 1.   In support of his arguments he placed reliance on case law reported as Delhi Development Authority Vs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney and Another-2003 (7) SCC 301. Wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the DDA is a creature of  statute , therefore, the policy decision or guidelines formulated by the DDA  have binding force. Similar  view is taken  by the Hon’ble   National Commission  in order dated 22.09.2011 in First Appeal no. 112 of 2006 titled  Delhi Development Authority Vs Smt. Raj Bala Grover.

            Similar  are the  facts of the present case.  Admittedly  the opposite party  no. 1 is charging  water  charges   under apolicy  as per theletters no. DJB/ZRO(W)IIJP/04/1741 dated 01.03.2004,SM/DC/JP/DDA/258 dated 28.02.2003,DJB/ZRO(W)II/JP/03/1689-91dated11.03.2003 and DJB/DOR/TARIFF/01-1/2004/4778 to 4821 dated 28/29.01.2005, therefore,  there is no unfair trade practice  and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1.

            In the light of our above discussion and observations firstly the complaint is barred by limitation.  Secondly the opposite party no. 1  is receiving water charges from  the complainant  under a policy, therefore,   there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no. 1. 

            Resultantly there is not merit in the complaint.   The same fails  and is hereby dismissed.

           

Order pronounced on :24.08.2017

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                               ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                         MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT