DISTRICT JUDGE, JAIPUR CITY vs RAJASTHAN STATE

THE original complaint under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) was filed against the opposite-parties, before the District Forum, Jaipur. THE complaint is dated 30.1.90.

THE District Forum, Jaipur transferred this complaint to the State Commission for the reasons stated in its letter dated 12.7.91. THE State Commission by its order dated 2.8.91 withdrew the complaint from the District Forum, Jaipur for trial and disposal. THE complainant has alleged that in the premises of the District Judges Court, Jaipur there are two water connections: Service Nos. being 15J/14-014-44526 and 15 J-14-013/44987 it was alleged that there are two ''Tannkies'' over the staircase for storing water. Water is supplied for one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening. It was alleged that for water consumption average bill by Service No. 44987 was for Rs. 600/-. THE bill which was received on 8.1.90 mentioned Rs. 550/- as consumption cliarges. THE complaint relates to service No.44526 as the ''Tannky'' of Service No.44987 is identical with that of 44526. For the months of July, August, September and October bills for Rs. 1041/-, Rs. 1041/-, Rs. 940/-, Rs. 940/- and Rs. 737/- were received in respect of Service No.44526. THEreafter a bill for Rs. 22,000/- was sent by the opposite parties. On objection being raised, bill for the month of November, 1986 for Rs. 15,293/- was sent. It was deposited under protest and that no amount was outstanding. In the month of December, 1988 again bill for Rs. 32,777/- was sent. For the month of January, 1989, the bill for Rs. 26,558/- was sent and in the month of March, 1989 bill for Rs. 47,000.55 P. was sent, which was subsequently amended for Rs. 11,531/-; However, in the month of April, 1989 bill for Rs. 94,437/- was sent, which was again amended to Rs. 4,707/-. THE complainant has alleged that for the months of July, 1989, September, 1989, October, 1989, November, 1989 and December, 1989 bills for Rs. 5,183/-, Rs. 5,576/-Rs. 6,034/-, Rs. 6012/- and Rs. 6,440/- respectively were sent after amendment. It was alleged by the complainant that in the months of October, November and December, 1989 before the amendments no amount was shown as outstanding in January, 1990. A bill was received by Accounts Section on 25.1.90 in which the amount payable nothing was shown. However, in the Departmental copy Rs. 1,23,682.01 P. was shown as arrears and the water consumed was shown as 13,70,000/- litres. THE complainant has prayed that the amount shown is incorrect for the quantity mentioned in the bill was not consumed. THE complainant tiled the complaint for the following reliefs:- (1) That the opposite parties may be directed not to recover charges at the commercial rate. (2) That the direction may be issued for the adjustment of Rs. 15,203/- which has been recovered excess in the past and also of any other bill by which a sum of more than Rs. 550/- has been recovered. (3) That the bill for the month of January, 1990 for Rs. 1,23,682/- was illegal and be declared void ab initio. (4) That a direction may also be issued to opposite parties not to send the bill in future until the excess amount above Rs. 550/- in all the bills has been adjusted. (5) That water connections may not be disconnected on account of the amount mentioned in the bill.

The opposite parties filed a version of the case before the District Forum resisting the complaint on various grounds. It was submitted that the complainant did not make any complaint regarding reduced pressure in writing nor orally. The bills are prepared according to the reading of the Meter. In a particular month if reading is not recorded on account of the Meter being out of order, then the bills are prepared either on the basis of the reading of the previous month or on the average of the 3 previous months of water consumption of that month in the previous year. The bills were amended on the request of the complainant as it was represented that it was not possible to deposit the entire amount. The record of the outstanding of each consumer is maintained by the Department. It was pleaded that the arrears of Rs.1,23,682.01 P. shown in the month of January, 1990 accumulated on account of the mistake of the complainant for had the amounts being deposited on the due dates/months. Such a big amount would not have fallen in a rrears. It was submitted that commercial rate has been rightly charged, objection regarding maintainability of the complaint was also raised, after the withdrawal of the complaint, when notices were issued to the opposite parties, Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Assistant Engineer, stated that the version of the case filed before the District-Forum in reply to the complaint should be treated as the version of the case here also.

On behalf of the complainant affidavits of Sarva Shri M.D. Goswami, Vijay Singh Puma, Ashok Ragwani, Rajender Singhal with documents were submitted in support of the complaint. Thereafter, the affidavit of the Officer In-charge was submitted. Learned Counsel for the complainant also submitted a report on 17.1.92 regarding the supply of water. The opposite parties did not avail of the opportunity granted to them for filing the affidavits in rebuttal on 17.2.92 Mr. B.L. Gupta, L.D.C., appearing for the opposite parties stated that adjournment for arguments may be granted. Learned Counsel for the complainant was heard on 18.5.92 as nobody had appeared on behalf of the opposite parties and the complaint was fixed for dictation of orders on 9.6.92. However, on 9.6.92 an application was submitted on behalf of the opposite parties for taking the written arguments on record. As learned Counsel for the complainant had no objections, they were taken on record. An opportunity was granted to the complainant to file reply to the arguments within 15 days from 19.6.92. On 23.7.92 Mr. Zamcen Hussain on behalf of the opposite parties submitted application for affording one more opportunity of hearing. It is recorded in the proceedings dated 27.11.92 that Mr. Zameen Hussain on behalf of the opposite parties has submitted information regarding consumption of water so far as the complainant is concerned giving various details. Learned Counsel for the complainant was granted an opportunity to give any counter information in regard to information supplied in writing on behalf of the opposite parties within 10 days from 22.11.92. On behalf of the complainant reply was submitted on 7.12.92. The case was posted for dictation of orders on 17.3.93. However, on 2.2.93 on behalf of the opposite parties Shri Kanti Chandra Sharma, Assistant Engineer, submitted an affidavit. There is nothing on the record to show that its copy was delivered to the complainant.

WE have considered the complaint, version of the case, affidavits filed on behalf of the parties, documents, oral submissions of the learned Counsel for the complainant and written arguments of the opposite parties as well as the information supplied by the parties in regard to consumption of water by the complainant. The reliefs sought by the complainant have already reproduced hereinabove. The complainant in the complaint has prayed that the opposite-parties may be directed not to charge commercial rate in future bills, In this connection, two questions arise for our consideration:- (1) Whether the Redressal Forum established under the Act can determine the question of domestic rate or commercial rate? and (2) Whether such a direction not to charge at the commercial rate can be given?

A somewhat similar question arose before the State Commission in Tripti Kumar Kothari v. Executive Engineer P.H.W.D. (II (1991) C.P.J. 289). The question involved was whether the water is being used for domestic or commercial purposes and whether the complainant is entitled to an order/direction at the domestic rate. It was observed as under:- "We are quite conscious of the fact that both the parties have come with rival version whether there is no meeting ground, for, according to the complainant, water is used exclusively by the owner of the house for the domestic purpose whereas according to the opposite-parties, it is being used by the owner of the house as well as tenants to the commercial establishment. There is affidavit of the complainant on the one side and there are affidavits of the Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer on the other side."

After considering Special Machines v. Punjab National Bank and Others (I (1991) CPJ 78 (NC), the State Commission observed as under:- "(11) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue involved in this case is not simple in regard to the short-coming or inadequacy in the quality and nature and amounting to performance of service which the opposite party has contacted to perform for consideration. In summary enquiry such questions cannot be determined, we are, therefore, of the opinion that in the complaint filed by the complainant-appellant the reliefs as prayed for by the complainant could not be granted by the District Forum and as such the complaint was not maintainable,"

The question of commercial rate also arose in Shri Harish Chand Taksali v. Superintending Engineer, City Circle, P.H.E.D. Sub-division, Gandhi Nagar,Jaipur(Appeal No.232/90 decided on 27.4.91). The State Commission observed that the correction for converting the commercial rate into domestic one cannot be done. Reliance was placed on Tripti Kumar''s case (supra) and it was held on the basis of the decisions of the National Commission that the reliefs prayed for by the complainant-appellant cannot be granted under the Act. Revision No.189/91 was tiled before the National Commission. The National Commission dismissed the revision petition vide its order dated 30.1.92. There are rival versions of the parties. There is no meeting ground and as such we are of opinion that this cannot be determined in a summary enquiry under the Act.

APART from that the direction prayed by the complainant against the opposite-parties for not charging the commercial rates in future bills caiuiot be granted under Section 14(1) of the Act as it is firmly established that the Redressal Forum established under the Act can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated in Section 14(1) of the Act and not beyond that. Reference in this connection may be made to (1) 1991 CSMR CAS 33, (2) 1991 CSMR CAS 45, (3) 1991 CSMR CAS 41, 1992 (2) CPR 720, 1993 (1) CPR 666 and 1993 (1) CPR 703. Thus the complainant is not entitled to grant of the first prayer made by him in the complaint. The second prayer made by the complainant is that a direction may be issued to the opposite-parties to adjust the excess amount of Rs. 550/- winch has been charged by the complainant in each of the bills in future bills. The declaration has been sought by the complainant to the effect that the realisation of the amount of Rs. 1,23,682.01 P. mentioned in the bill in the month of January, 1990 may be declared illegal and void ab initio. A further relief has been sought by the complainant that a direction may be issued to the opposite parties not to send the bills of water consumption until the excess amount of Rs.550/- per month which has been realised from the complainant is adjusted. A serious question arises whether a Redressal Forum can grant such reliefs which have been mentioned above. We have already stated that these reliefs are beyond the scope of Section 14(1) of the Act. Reference has already been made to the authorities hereinabove in support of this. It follows therefore, that none of the reliefs which the complainant has sought in the complaint can be granted to the complainant. We are, therefore, left with no alternative but to dismiss the complaint. It is, however, clarified that nothing stated in this order shall adversely or prejudicially affect the complainant in any other proceedings which he may be advised to take in regard to the matter in question. The result is that the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed. _______________