Judgment:
Lokeshwar Prasad, President:
1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as âthe Act), is directed against order dated 10.11.2000, passed by District Forum-I, in Complaint Case No. 186/2000-entitled M/s. Mahaveer Hat Manufacturer Company v. Deputy D.O.R. (Water).
2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that water meter No. 19595, installed at its premises, was out of order for many years and when the same was not repaired the appellant requested the respondent to remove the same vide letter dated 8.4.1999. The grievance of the appellant, in the complaint, filed before the District Forum, was that though, the water meter installed in its premises was not working, yet the respondent sent a bill for Rs. 11,072/-. It was prayed by the appellant that the respondent be directed to remove the meter and withdraw the bill sent to the appellant.
3. The claim of the appellant, in the District Forum, was resisted by the respondent and the stand taken by the respondent was that the meter installed in the premises of the appellant gave recording upto 10.1.1995 and thereafter the appellant made flooring on the meter, as a result of which, the bill for water consumption had to be sent on minimum guarantee basis. It was also stated that the meter of the appellant had been replaced and on 7.3.2000 a new meter had been installed.
4. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.
6. We have heard Mr. Kishan Lal Verma, Attorney of the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of material on record, more particularly, the impugned order, it is apparent that from 10.1.1995 to 7.3.2000, the demand for water consumption had been raised by the respondent on the basis of minimum guarantee. The contention advanced by the attorney of the appellant that as the meter installed at the premises of the appellant was out of order and was replaced/repaired only on 7.3.2000, the respondent was not justified in sending a bill for Rs. 11,072/-, for the period from 10.1.1995 to 7.3.2000, i.e. when the meter remained out of order, is devoid of substance because it is not denied even by the Attorney of the appellant, before us during argument, that though the meter in question during the abovesaid period was out of order and water was not being supplied through that meter, yet water was being consumed during the abovesaid period and in the absence of meter being defective, the respondent was fully justified in raising the demand on the basis of minimum guarantee.
7. For the above reasons, the present appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed in limine.