Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Presiding Member &
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member
B.S. LOBNANA—Appellant
versus
S.D.O., WATER SUPPLY & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal Case No. 292 of 2003—Decided on 10.9.2003
Water Bill Dispute - Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 12(1), Section 12(1)(d), Section 12(1)(g), Section 12(1)(o), Section 12(1)(r), Section 12(1)(u), Section 14(1)(d), Section 14(1)(g), Section 14(1)(o), Section 14(1)(r), Section 14(1)(u), Section 21(b), Section 21(c), Section 21(d), Section 21(o), Section 21(r), Section 21(u) - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, including the definitions of 'complainant', 'deficiency', 'service', 'unfair trade practice', and 'consumer dispute'. The court also considered the jurisdiction of the Consumer Redressal Agencies and the limitations of their summary jurisdiction under the Act. The interpretation of evidence requirements and the scope of adjudication under the Act were crucial in the court's decision to set aside the District Forum's order and relegate the appellant to the remedy of Civil Court.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant received an excessive water bill and alleged manipulation of meter reading by the water supply authorities. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, stating that the bill was based on meter reading and the meter was found to be functioning properly. The appellant appealed, challenging the District Forum's order and alleging inconsistencies and tampering with the meter.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the District Forum's order and directed the appellant to seek remedy in the Civil Court, stating that the issues involved and the evidence required for adjudication cannot be adduced in the summary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act.
Issues: Dispute over excessive water bill, alleged manipulation of meter reading, jurisdiction of Consumer Redressal Agencies, scope of adjudication under the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the issues involved in the case and the evidence required for adjudication cannot be adduced in the summary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, and therefore directed the appellant to seek remedy in the Civil Court.
Final Decision: The court set aside the District Forum's order and directed the appellant to seek remedy in the Civil Court.
Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Presiding Member—This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.3.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short, hereinafter, to be referred as District Forum-I) in Complaint Case No. 574 of 2002.
The brief facts are as under :
2. The appellant/complainant Mr. B.S. Lobana, resident of House No. 4096, Sector 46-D, Chandigarh has averred that he received an excessive water bill of Rs. 1,322/- for the period 31.1.2002 to to 31.2.2002. The appellant/complainant has submitted that the average water consumption in his residence has been much on the lower side and the aforesaid bill is due to mischief of the employees of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. The appellant/complainant was issued bills on average basis which ranged from 54 of 60 K.Ltrs. for two months billing period. The appellant/complainant has alleged that impugned bill is based on manipulated and fictitious meter reading as no construction/renovation has been undertaken by him during the billing period in dispute. The appellant/complainant has prayed for quashing of the disputed bill and for a direction to the opposite parties to issue a revised bill based on average or previous three bills issued on the basis of metered supply. The complainant has claimed in addition to the litigation costs, a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony to him.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of opposite parties by Sh. I.S. Sokhey, Superintending Engineer (B&R), the preliminary objection has been taken that since the meter of the complainant stopped working the earlier bills were issued on average consumption but after the meter started working and the reading was available so the bill on the basis of actual consumption was sent, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. In reply on merit the O.Ps. have submitted that the bill of period 31.1.2002 to 31.3.2002 disputed by the complainant is as per meter reading. The bills sent earlier were based on the average consumption as the meter of the complainant’s house was not functional. The above meter was tested on 11.2.2002 in the laboratory and same was reported to be functioning O.K. and the reading recorded was 6,03,000, however, due to clerical mistake it was mentioned as 5,03,000. This discrepancy in the reading was adjusted in the next bill as shown vide Annexure R-1. It is reiterated that the meter is functioning properly and bill is as per the reading shown.
4. In the replication filed by the complainant, it has been pleaded, inter alia, that the bill based on average does not indicate that the average bill was sent due to stopping of meter. The complainant has alleged that this is an attempt to cover up illegal action on the part of the opposite parties. The appellant/complainant has further submitted that even the metered bill for 31.11.1999 to 31.1.2000 show that his consumption was not more than 58 K.Ltrs. per billing period. Similarly for 30.9.2001 to 30.11.2001 his consumption was 65 K.Ltrs. and for the period 30.11.2001 to 31.1.2002 the consumption was 80 K. Ltrs. per billing period of two months. The complainant has reiterated the averments that the disputed bill showing consumption of 353 K.Ltrs. for two months is illegal and arbitrary.
5. In evidence the complainant has brought on record his affidavit and Annexures BS, BT to BT/2 and C-2 to C-4. While the O.Ps. filed the affidavit of Sh. I.S. Sokhey, Superintending Engineer (B&R).
6. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that since the bill was based on meter reading and meter tested in laboratory was found O.K., no deficiency could be proved against the O.Ps.
7. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed the appeal pleading, inter alia, that the order of the District Forum is based on conjectures and surmises. The appellant has assailed the findings of the District Forum on the ground that it failed to take no
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
