The complainant has the onus to prove excess charge and provide documentary evidence to support the claim.

ORDER

Vinay Kumar, Presiding Member - M/s. Jagan Nath Brij Kumar (P) Ltd. has filed this revision petition against concurrent orders of the District Forum-I, UT of Chandigarh and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh. The matter relates to complaint of excess charge in water bills of the Complainant. The Complainant deposited requisite fee on 4.9.2008 for testing for leakage in the water meter line. No leakage was found and hence request for testing of water meter was made. The meter was found to be defective and was changed in January, 2009. In this background, the respondent Municipal Corporation, Public Health and Water Supply Division revised the bill account for the period 15.7.2007 to 15.1.2009 and gave the credit of Rs. 5,280 to the account of the Complainant.

2. In the consumer complaint filed subsequently in 2011, alleging that:

"That the complainant wrote numerous letters to the OP to refund the excess charges in the water bills received prior to the changing of water meter. It was further brought forth by the complainant that after the change of the water meter, the subsequent water bills were 20% of the earlier bills. The said bills showed what the actual water charges should have been for all the preceding years but for the lenient and non-cooperative attitude, the complainant was made to suffer huge financial woes. It is pertinent to mention here that after the installation of the new water meter the complainant usage/consumption was even lower than the permissible quantity under the minimum fixed charges charged by the OPs. Copies of letters dated 25.8.2009, 15.10.2009 and 1.12.2009 are being annexed as Annexures C-9, C-10 and C-11."

3. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum, which held that:

"After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the pleadings of the parties and perusing the documents on record, it has been made out that it is an admitted case of the parties that in response to the complainant made by the complainant, his water meter was got checked, and found 9% fast on 11.11.2008. It is also admitted by the parties that the benefit of the fast running water meter was also extended to the complainant for the period 15.7.2007 to 15.1.2009, based on the formula. Thus, the charged in excess, was granted to the complainant against his account."

4. Appeal against dismissal of the complaint has also been dismissed by the State Commission. The State Commission has observed that the application for condonation of delay of 42 days did not have any merit and was therefore, dismissed. It also held that the order passed by the District Forum was based on correct appreciation of evidence and the law did not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

5. We have carefully considered the records submitted by the revision petitioner M/s. Jagan Nath Brij Kumar (P) Ltd. and have heard Mr. Ankit Goyel, Advocate on his behalf. On the question of dismissal of the application for condonation of delay by the State Commission. Learned Counsel referred to observations of the State Commission in para 13 of the impugned order and sought to explain the same with reference to the application before the State Commission. The State Commission has observed that the contention in the application that the Counsel before the District Forum had received the certified copy of the order of dismissal of the complaint, but had not informed the Complainant until 22.10.2012 about it, has not been accepted by the State Commission. It has been rejected on the ground that the application does not even mention the name of the Counsel. Nor does it mention any details of the period during which renovation of his house was going on. Also no supporting document or evidence was placed on record. In this behalf, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner conceded during arguments that the affidavit of the concerned Advocate, due to whose conduct delay in filing of appeal had occurred before the State Commiss