HEALTH ENGG DEPTT Vs. MARIE D SILVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by the appellant department is against the order of the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I dated 2.6.2000 allowing the complaint filed by the respondent and directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.3,500/- for expenses incurred by her as also for mental agony and cost of litigation and further directed to recover the aforesaid amount from the delinquent officials of the appellant.

(2.) We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at great length and perused the material available on the record.

(3.) The respondent had approached the learned District Forum complaining that she is a retired teacher of a private school and gets a pension of Rs.250/- p. m. only and has a water supply connection in her house. It has been the grievance of the respondent that though she is living with only her younger sister and there is no much consumption of water and she had been receiving the water consumption bills at the minimum rates for past so many years, yet she received a water consumption bill for the month of Feb. , 1997 exhibiting the consumption of 16000 ltrs. of water, mainly because she had refused to part with any amount to the Meter-Reader suggesting the delivery of bills for minimum amount as has been in the earlier years. It has further been the grievance of the respondent that not only for the month of Feb. but for the months of March, April, June and July, 1997 she repeatedly got the bills for consumption of similar quantity of water and every time she had to run to the offices of the appellant to get the bills corrected and succeeded in it. Similarly another bill of July, 1997 was also corrected by the concerned Engineer and she was directed to deposit a lesser amount. However, when for the months of Jan. and Feb. , 1998 bills were received by her, it was found that in the said bills, consumption for the months of December, 1997, January and February, 1998 was also shown as arrears although she had deposited the amounts as corrected by the earlier Engineer from time to time. On 21.2.1998, when she went to get it corrected in the office of the appellant, some other Engineer was found posted instead, who refused to make any corrections in the aforesaid bill and directed her to deposit the demanded amount.