DELHI JAL BOARD Vs. O.P.MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the order dated 03.03.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission ') in Appeal No. 07/371 - Delhi Jal Board Vs. Shri O.P. Mehra, ACM (Retd.) by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that OP/petitioner provided two water connections to the complainant/respondent. Meters of both the connections were defective right from the year 1999. It was further alleged that there was no water supply from one of the connections; however, OP continued raising bills against both these connections on ad hoc basis and complainant made payment under threat of disconnection. Inspite of repeated complaints, OP did not redress grievances of the complainant. Meters were replaced in April, 2004. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.26,750/ - paid by the complainant on account of illegal bills and further directed to issue revised bills on the basis of average consumption and further awarded Rs.25,000/ - for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5,000/ - as cost of litigation. Petitioner filed appeal before State Commission and during course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner restricted submissions to the extent of compensation granted by District Forum and in such circumstances, findings of District Forum were affirmed on merits by learned State Commission. Learned State Commission vide impugned order upheld grant of compensation and cost against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) DISTRICT Forum allowed refund of Rs.26,750/ - to the complainant paid by him on account of illegal bills raised by the OP and to this extent, appeal has not been pressed and learned State Commission upheld this order on merits which aspect does not require reconsideration in this revision petition and revision petition is to be decided only to the extent of compensation awarded to the respondent.