Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/129/2022

SUB DIVISION ENGINEER - Complainant(s)

Versus

SOMESH GUPTA S/O SH KL GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN SHARMA AND VINOD KUMAR SHARMA ADVOCATES

17 Nov 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	129 of 2022
Date of Institution	30.09.2022
Date of Decision	17.11.2022

Sub Divisional Engineer, MCPH Sub-Division No.9, Sector-37, Water Supply, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh.

                               …..Appellant/Opposite Party

Versus

Somesh Gupta Son of Sh. KL Gupta R/o #5739, Sector-38 (west), Chandigarh.

•  

                  

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                 MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                 MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

               

Argued by:   Sh. Nitin Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant alongwith

                   Sh. Saurav Thakur, Junior Engineer, MCPH Sub Divn. No.9.

                       

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 11.08.2022, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II (now District Commission-II), U.T., Chandigarh (in the short ‘the District Commission’ only), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint against Opposite Party, with the following directions: -

“7.     From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that it is proved that the OP has acted carelessly & wrongfully, which amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Therefore, the present complaint stands allowed against OP with direction to revise the water consumption bill of the complainant from Feb., 2019 to Aug., 2020 by taking into account the reading & consumption of the corresponding previous period i.e. Feb., 2017 to Aug., 2018 and credit the excess amount, if any, in the water bill account of the complainant as well as to supply the copy of such calculation in tabulated form to the complainant. The OP is also directed to pay a compository amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing him immense mental agony & harassment due to their wrongful, deficient, omission & commission, which also includes litigation cost.

     This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.15000/- apart from above relief.”

2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant is having water connection vide Account No.310/3820/573900E from the Opposite Party. It was stated that the complainant started receiving water bill on average basis from the month of May, 2019 at inflated rate of above Rs.1000/-, in comparison to his old water bills which were for less than Rs.500/- and that too when their employees used to record the water reading regularly. It was further stated that the complainant in this regard sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party on 25.02.2020 vide Annexure C-2 with the request to look into the matter, correct all previous bills sent on average basis and refund the excess amount charges with same rate of interest/penalty which they charged for delayed payment. It was further stated that still the Opposite Party did not pay any heed and the complainant received another water bill dated 12.06.2020 for an amount of Rs.2136/-. It was further stated that the complainant moved another representation to Opposite Party on 14.07.2020 and made personal visits, whereupon he was advised by the Opposite Party to change his water mater as the same is defective and accordingly, the complainant purchased new water meter, deposited a fee of Rs.180/- with Opposite Party and then it has been installed by the Opposite Party on 17.07.2020 after taking old water meter vide Annexure C-4. It was further stated that even thereafter the complainant received water bill dated 10.08.2020 (Annexure C-5) on average basis for an amount of Rs.1017/- and then another bill dated 16.09.2020 for Rs.631/- for the period from 16.06.2020 to 15.08.2020 whereas, the new water meter was installed by the employee of Opposite Party on 17.07.2020 vide Annexure C-6. It was further stated that the complainant also sent second legal notice dated 28.09.2020 to the Opposite Party and also made personal visits to set right the old water bills, but to no avail.  It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, was filed.
3. The Opposite Party filed its reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case and stated that the complainant was using defective water meter, so he was charged water bill with penalty.  It was further stated that the complainant knew that the water meter was faulty and he was ignoring this fact and was depending upon the Opposite Party to rectify the same whereas it is clearly mentioned on the backside of every water bill (Annexure R-2) that the replacement of faulty/defective meter will be done by consumer to get the faulty/defective meter replaced within one month from the issue of water charges bill of defective meter and otherwise recovery on penal rate i.e. double the applicable tariff will be charged from the consumer.  It was further stated that in case of defective meter, defective meter status code (D) is reflected in the water meter bill and in the present case, water bill for the period from 2/2019 to 4/2019 having charges of Rs.477/- and showing code D is sent to the complainant, which is also reflected in the account statement of complainant prepared by the Opposite Party (Annexure R-3).   It was further stated that in between vide notification dated 21.06.2019, water surcharges were increased to 30% of water consumption amount so the same was charged from the complainant as per law. It was further stated that the complainant was getting water bill for the amount mentioned in the legal notice for the reason that his meter was defective and he has not replaced the faulty meter.  It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on its part, and the Opposite Party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments of Opposite Party, contained in the complaint.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the complainant in person and Counsel for the Opposite Party, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, allowed the complaint against the Opposite Party, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the Opposite Party.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed at preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
10. On a perusal of the record of the learned District Commission, this Commission finds that the District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint against the appellant/Opposite Party with the direction to revise the water consumption bill of the respondent from February 2019 to August 2020 by taking into account the reading of the consumption of the corresponding previous period i.e. February 2017 to August 2018 and credit the excess amount, if any, in the water bill of the complainant alongwith the direction to supply a copy of such calculation to the respondent. The District Commission further also directed to pay compensatory amount Rs.2000/- to the respondent towards compensation.
11. In our opinion, we find that the judgment passed by the learned District Commission is in order and does not invoke any interference from us. The conduct of the appellant was not satisfactory in resolving the grievance of the respondent in as much as that in spite of the knowledge that the water meter of the appellant was defective. The appellant did not take any corrective action and further the appellant was casual in its attitude in as much as the legal notice issued by the respondent was never replied, which proves that the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant is writ large causing much loss and harassment to the respondent. Accordingly, we feel that this appeal deserves to be dismissed and the order of the District Commission is upheld.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed at preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.
13. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

17.11.2022

                                                                             

                                                              Sd/-

                        [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                         Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

                                                                                Sd/-

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

 

                                                                                    Sd/-

[PREETINDER SINGH]

MEMBER

GP