K.C. Gupta, President — This appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 31-10-2005 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), whereby his complaint was dismissed with no order as to costs.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant was owner of Shop-cum-flat No. 179, Sector-26, Chandigarh. In the said premises, water connection was

installed in his name by the respondents bearing account No. 107/2609/17900-P.

3. It was next averred that the building of SCF had got three floors inas- much as ground floor was meant for godown purpose, first and second floors were meant for residential purpose as per original site plan. Since, he utilized the ground floor for godown purposes, so, there was no water connection at the ground floor from the very inception of his ownership. He and his family members were living on the first and second floors of the building and water supply was being used for the first and second floors.

4. It was further averred that the respondents had been issuing bills for water consumption on the basis of commercial charges, although same should have been issued on the basis of domestic rates. The rate of water supply for commercial purpose was Rs. 11.00 per K.L. whereas for domestic supply it was Rs. 1.75 per K.L.

5. It was next averred that he had brought the matter to the notice of respondents who promised to rectify the error but nothing was done and on the other hand, suddenly on 16-7-2004, they sent a bill of Rs. 50913/- as water charges on commercial rates and the copy of bill is annexure C-2. Although, he was not bound to pay said illegal bill, yet to save himself from disconnection of water supply, he paid the bill and filed a complaint before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, U.T. Chandgiarh, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 27-4-2005 whose copy is annexure C-12.

6. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondents, appellant filed complaint praying that water supply charges be levied on domestic rates and excess charges already paid be adjusted in his future bills. He also claimed compensation of Rs. 75,000/- on account of mental agony etc. besides Rs. 11,000/- as litigation costs.

7. Respondents contested the complaint and stated that commercial site bearing No. 179, situated in grain market, Sector-26, Chandigarh was allotted to the appellant in the year 1972 and further the building plan was sanctioned by the Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh on 11-8-1972 and since then, he was being charged for the supply of water on commercial basis and the appellant had never disputed the charging for water supply on commercial rates. They further stated that they had inquired from the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh about the sanctioning of plan of site in question and the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh had informed vide letter dated 16-5-2005 that the plan in respect of the site in question was sanctioned on 11-8-1972 wherein the ground floor was sanctioned for godown, first floor for the office and second floor for residential purpose. Therefore, they prayed that the complaint should be dismissed.

8. After hearing counsel for the parties, the District Consumer Forum vide order dated 31-10-2005 dismissed the complaint finding no deficiency in service and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

9. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal.

10. We have heard counsel for appellant Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, counsel for respondents Sh. O.P. Dabla and carefully gone through the file.

11. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is owner of SCF No. 179, Sector-26, Chandigarh and water connection was installed in his name by the respondents in the said premises vide account No. 107/2609/17900-P. It is further an admitted fact that the said building has three floors. According to the appellant, the ground floor is meant for godown purposes while first