KIRAN VOHRA Vs. COMMISSIONER MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'), is directed against the order dated 3.7.1997 passed by West District Forum in Case No.596/1997 entitled Km. Kiran V/s. MCD, wherein respondent MCD was directed to refund Rs.457.25 p. paid by the appellant vide Bill dated 2.3.1993 and also to refund Rs.224/- (sic.) refundable vide bill dated 4.4.1995 and to pay cost of litigation amounting to Rs.250/-.

(2.) Notice of the appeal as well as the application seeking condonation of delay was issued to the respondents who put in appearance. Respondents were directed to file reply on 6.10.1998. Reply was not filed. Case was adjourned to 8.12.1998, 2.9.1999 and then to 22.7.1999. No one appeared for the respondents on 22.7.1999 nor reply to the memorandum of appeal was filed. Cost imposed vide order dated 8.12.1998 amounting to Rs.250/- was also not paid and, therefore, vide order dated 22.7.1999, it was directed by this Commission that respondents be proceeded ex-parte in the present proceedings.

(3.) Appellant averred in her complaint before the District Forum that she had applied for water connection to MCD and deposited Rs.1,226/- and meter was installed at her residence on 15.1.1991 and thereafter, she received a bill for Rs.200/- for the period from 30.6.1992 to 19.11.1992 without any meter reading and the said bill was paid. Next bill for Rs.200/- was received which was also paid. The third bill for the period 15.1.1991 to 12.2.1993 for Rs.457.25p. on the basis of meter reading was received. After adjusting Rs.400/- paid by the appellant for two bills mentioned above, the balance of Rs.57.25p. was to be paid and the appellant paid the same. However, a sum of Rs.781/- due to the appellant on account of advance of Rs.1,226/- deposited by her on 15.1.1991 was not adjusted and thereafter the bills for the period from 12.2.1993 to 22.7.1993 and 22.7.1993 to 12.10.1993 on the basis of water meter reading were received which were paid by the appellant. Thereafter the appellant received a bill for the period from 12.10.1993 to 10.1.1994 for Rs.100/-. The meter reader on 10.1.1994 found that the meter had stopped at 856 between the two periods of reading from 12.10.1993 to 10.1.1994. The bill of Rs.100/- was also paid by the appellant. Another bill for the period 12.10.1993 to 12.10.1994 for Rs.336.30p. was received. Appellant was required to pay Rs.236.40p. after adjusting of Rs.100/- paid by her against provisional bill for the period from 12.10.1993 to 10.1.1994. However, the bill for period 12.6.1994 to 12.10.1994 for Rs.416/- was again received which too was paid. It was alleged by the appellant that respondent had charged 55 K. L. per month for the period 12.10.1993 to 12.10.1994 when the meter was out of order and actual average consumption for the 12 months preceding the date of stoppage of meter worked out to 22 K. L. p. m. Accordingly, respondent over-charged a sum of Rs.515.68p. from the appellant. It was, therefore, prayed that respondent be directed to pay Rs.515.68p. with interest @ 18%. It was also prayed that respondent be directed to refund Rs.781/- which was due to her on account of advance payment of Rs.1,226/- made on 15.1.1991. Appellant also prayed for compensation for mental agony suffered by her.