BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case  No : 666 of 2011

Date of Institution :  11.11.2011

Date of  Decision   :   16.3.2012

Ram Kumar son of Sh.Ami Lal, R/O House No.236-B, Sector 43-A, Chandigarh.

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1]  Union Territory, Chandigarh, through Home Secretary. (Deleted Vide order dated 23.1.2012)

2]  Executive Engineer, Public Health M.C., Sector 37, U.T., Chandigarh

3]  Sub Divisional Engineer, M.C. H.H. Sub Division No.6, Sector 37, Chandigarh.

4]  Sub Divisional Officer, Sewerage, Sub Division No.1, Sector 9, Additional Town Hall Building, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:  Sh.P.D. GOEL                PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL        MEMBER

          DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA          MEMBER

Argued by:    Complainant in person.

Ms.Smriti Dhir, Counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.

Sh.Jatinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for OP No.4.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

         Succinctly put, the complainant, residing in government accommodation No.236-B, Sector 43-A, Chandigarh, since Dec., 2008, is having water connection Account NO.309/4301/2236BOA and paying water bill regularly.  The grievance of the complainant is that the Bill dated 07.10.2011 (Ann.C-1) issued by OPs for an amount of Rs.7368/-, shows an amount of Rs.356.51 as adjusted towards previous bill, whereas there was no pending payment of water bill.  It is averred that prior to the issuance of bill in question, there was never such huge consumption, as is clear from Table shown in Para-6 of the complaint. When the matter was brought to the notice of OPs, they assured to rectify the mistake but to no effect.  As such, a written request was made to OPs to correct the bill, but the OPs did nothing. Ultimately, after great efforts, the OPs visited the premises on 4.11.2011 and checked the meter/leakage etc. It was found that there was leakage and the water was flowing in sewer line. The leakage was stopped by repairing the water line.  Thereafter, complainant again visited OPs and requested them to correct the bill in question Ann.C-1, but they flatly refused to do so, saying that the bill has to be paid.  Hence, this complaint alleging the above act of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, due to which the complainant is being harassed a lot.

2]       The name of OP No.1 was deleted vide order dated 23.1.2012.   

         OPs No.2 & 3 filed joint reply and admitted that the complainant is using the water connection in question as well as issuance of bill in dispute. It is submitted that the accommodation, in which the complainant is residing, is a government accommodation. The complainant got the connection restored in Nov., 2008.  It is stated that while the connection was restored, the Clerk made the entry in the Register, but inadvertently did not make this entry in the Computer.  Furthermore, the address against the said account number was written as #236-A instead of #236-B, so the computer did not accept the meter reading, as it did not fully match with the particulars.  Therefore, the water bills were issued on Average Basis.  However, when the lapse was noticed, the water reading was recorded and it came to be 2408000.  The initial reading from where the bill was restored was 6,53,000 lts. Thus the bill amounting to Rs.5525/- was raised against the said consumption.  The copy of the meter reading register is attached as Ann.R-1.  On the request of the complainant, the meter was also tested and it was found to be in OK condition vide Meter Testing Report dated 24.10.2011 (Ann.R-2). Pleading no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 3, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.   

         OPs No.4 also filed reply stating therein that complainant neither brought any such matter before them nor moved any application. Moreover, the matter or providing water supply, its metering and collection of bills for drinking water, so supplied to the consumers, exists in the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh/Ops No.2 & 3, since its formation. As per practice, as and when any complaint is received from any occupant of Govt. Houses, the same is immediately attended upon.

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the complainant, ld.Counsel for OPs NO.2 & 3, ld.Govt. Pleader for OP No.4 and have also perused the record. 

5]       The grouse of the complainant is that he has been wrongly issued water bill of Rs.7368/- vide Bill Ann.C-1.  The complainant has contended that prior to issuance of bill in question, there was never such huge consumption and when this matter was taken up with OPs to correct the bill, they flatly refused to do so.

6]       On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 has argued that earlier the water bill were issued to the complainant on average basis as the meter reading could not be reflected in the bills due to non-entry of correct address particulars of complainant.  He further argued that when the lapse was noticed, the water reading was recorded and accordingly, the bill as per actual consumption and reading was issued to the complainant.   

7]       We find force in the contention of ld.Counsel for OPs NO.2 & 3.  It is not disputed that earlier, the complainant was being charged on average basis. But, the complainant has to pay the water bill as per consumption & reading, which is shown in the Bill Ann.C-1.  The complainant cannot be given benefit of any lapse or inadvertent error on the part of OPs.  Moreover, the water meter was also tested and found to be in OK Condition vide Meter Testing Report, dated 24.10.2011 (Ann.R-2). The said report goes unrebutted & uncontroverted from the side of the complainant.   

8]       In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there was no deficiency on the part of OPs. The complaint is meritless.  The same is accordingly dismissed. 

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.