SATPAL SINGHAppella vs DELHI JAL BOARD (SOUTH ZONE)

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 24.1.2003, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 4338/2000, entitled Shri Satpal Singh v. Delhi Jal Board.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Shri Satpal Singh had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum. In the complaint filed by the appellant, before the District Forum the grievance raised related to his water connection. It was stated that the respondent had raised excessive bills for water consumption and had disconnected his water connection on the basis of excessive demands raised by the respondent. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent Delhi Jal Board and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondent, the respondent had taken certain preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint, filed by the appellant, was not maintainable; that the complaint filed was abuse of the process of law and beyond the provisions and scope of the Act and the jurisdiction of the District Forum that there was neither any deficiency in service nor any negligence on the part of the respondent; and that no notice under Section 96 of the Delhi Jal Board Act had been served by the appellant upon the respondent.

On merits it was stated that a water connection bearing No. 65615, under domestic category, was sanctioned in 1997 in the premises in question. It was stated that due to non-payment of water charges, the above said water connection was disconnected on 6.1.2000 but the appellant had illegally and unlawfully re-opened that water connection and continued taking water unauthorisedly and illegally. It was stated that the demand had been raised by the respondent as per the policy of the respondent.

THE learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and on the basis of the above finding has rejected the complaint, filed by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

WE have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of documents/material on record, it is not in dispute that water connection, bearing No. 65615 under domestic category, had been sanctioned in the premises in question on 25.4.1997. It is also apparent that on 11.12.1998 when the meter reader of the respondent visited the premises in question he found the glass of the meter in a broken condition. It is also not in dispute that the water connection of the appellant was disconnected by the respondent on 6.1.2000 due to non-payment of bills. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned District Forum has observed that the building in question is a three storeyed building, having in all 15 rooms and despite the fact that the appellant had been using the water regularly, he has in all paid a sum of Rs. 700/- only towards water charges. It has also been observed by the learned District Forum that the appellant had been drawing water illegally directly from the main line. With a view to satisfy ourselves, we have put a specific question to the appellant as to whether the building in question is a three storeyed building and whether the appellant in all has aid a sum of Rs. 700/- towards water charges and whether the appellant had been using water regularly. To our above queries, the appellant could not give any satisfactory reply and the replies given by him were evasive in nature though he admitted that the building in question is a three storeyed building and total payment made by him was only Rs. 700/- towards water charges. The main thrust of the appellant during the course of arguments is that the respondent be directed to charge for water consumption @ Rs. 50/- p.m. because no resident of the village has paid water charges at a rate higher than the above rate. In our opinion, the above argument advanced by the appellant is devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected summarily. The order being impugned in the present proceedings is a well reasoned order and if totality of circumstances is viewed, in so far as deficiency is concerned, the boot is decidedly on the other leg. The present appeal, viewed from all angles is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.