Complainant/petitioner is an association of flat owners of the building developed by the respondents. The present dispute is regarding the water charges. According to the petitioner, as per agreement, the water charges were fixed at Rs.1.50 for raw water of 1000 litres whereas respondents were charging Rs.30 for 1000 litres of filtered water. In addition, the respondents were charging tax @ 10.20%. It is also stated in the complaint that the respondents have reduced the pressure of the water in order to harass the petitioner.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint by observing as under:-

“Considering the entire above discussion, the Forum is of the view that through the water is basic essential need of a human being, no one can absolved from the liability to pay the charges towards it and in the present case, the complainants failed to pay, as they thought the charges towards water supply demanded by the opponents were exorbitant. On failure to pay the charges disconnecting the water supply does not amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opponents and hence we answer our issue No.1 as negative. The Forum is of the view that the opponent No.1 has already approached the Hon’ble Civil Court, wherein they have prayed for deciding the issue of the charges of water supply, therefore in Forum’s opinion the complainants also raised their objection regarding rate for water supply before Hon’ble Civil Court only. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances and the prayers of the complainant, we have no alternative except to dismiss the complaint.

Petitioner being aggrieved by filed appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by observing that deciding the price of the commodity is not within the jurisdiction of the consumer foras. For this, the State Commission has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in The State of Gujarat vs. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot & Anr. Reported in 1986099 Consumer 4780 (NS).

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the State Commission has wrongly dismissed the complaint by observing that only price issue was involved in the present case. In addition, the petitioner had alleged certain other deficiencies in rendering the service as well.

We have gone through the complaint. In the present case, the only dispute is regarding the price to be charged for the water supply. Prayer made in the complaint also relates to the water charges only. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Earlier the respondents were supplying raw-water @ 1.50 per 1000 litres of water whereas now they are charging Rs.30 for 1000 litres of filtered water. There is no other dispute in the complaint. Relief claimed is regarding water charges only.

 Respondents have already filed a civil suit which is pending consideration. Since the Civil Court is seized of the matter, petitioner is well advised to take whatever defence he wants to take in accordance with law.

Revision petition is dismissed.