Sham Sunder (Retd.), President:
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.09.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), as under:-
œIn view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under :-
i) to immediately overhaul the account of the complainant by treating it as residential from the date it was changed to commercial.
ii) to adjust the amount (arrived at after overhauling the account) in the future bill(s) of the complainant.
iii) To pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iv) To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.
This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(iii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.?
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was allotted House No.1186, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh, vide allotment letter dated 28.03.2003-Annexure C-1. He is a registered homeopathic medical practitioner, from the Council of Homoeopathic System of Medicine, U.T., Chandigarh, and was authorized to practice, in Chandigarh, vide Chandigarh Administration letter dated 07.01.1983 Annexure C-2. It was stated that the Opposite Parties, without giving any notice to the complainant, started raising water bills, for the house, in question, on commercial basis w.e.f. 05.05.2012, though earlier the same were being sent for residential use. It was further stated that the complainant has been working, from a small room, in the said house, as a homeopathic medical practitioner and his profession does not involve a commercial activity. It was further stated that the Electricity Department, had also started levying commercial charges, on the electric consumption, in respect of the house, in question, but when the complainant sent a legal notice, the same were withdrawn by it. It was further stated that the complainant visited the Opposite Parties, a number of times, with the request to withdraw their illegal demand of raising the water consumption bills, on commercial basis, in respect of the house, in question. However, vide their letter dated 11.09.2012, the Opposite Parties justified their demand, to levy commercial rate, in respect of the water bills. Left with no alternative, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 09.11.2012 Annexure C-7, to the Opposite Parties, to withdraw the illegal demand aforesaid, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to convert the water tariff plan, from commercial to residential; refund the amount, received by them, in excess, on account of the reasons aforesaid; pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.
3. The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, admitted the levy of commercial rate, in respect of the water bill, for the house of the complainant. It was stated that the complainant was running a clinic, from the house, in question, and, therefore, as per Bye-law 13B Note (ii) of the Chandigarh Water Supply Bye-laws, 2011, the complainant was rightly charged the commercial rate, in respect of the water consumption. It was further stated that since the demand aforesaid was raised, in accordance with the Bye-laws aforesaid, having the force of law, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, he reiterated the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties. 5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, submitted that according to the admission of the respondent/complainant, in the complaint itself, he is a registered homeopathic medical practitioner, from the Council of Homoeopathic System of Medicine, U.T., Chandigarh, and is authorized to practice in Chandigarh, vide Chandigarh Administration Letter No.F17(XII)-8824/CHSM/12/208 dated 07.01.1983 Annexure C-2. She further submitted that, in one of the rooms of the residential house, the complainant has been running his clinic, as a homeopathic medical practitioner. She further submitted that, no doubt, the Opposite Parties charged the complainant @ Rs.15.00 per kiloliter, for water consumption, in the house, in question, considering that he was running a commercial activity, in the same. She further submitted that, infact, the complainant was liable to be charged @ Rs.12.00 per kiloliter, as per Bye-law 13 ii) f of the Chandigarh Water Supply Bye-laws, 2011. She further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the complainant was required to be charged for water consumption, considering his premises as residential. She further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.
10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that the Opposite Parties were wrong, in levying water consumption charges @ Rs.15.00 per kiloliter, considering the premises of the complainant, as commercial. He further submitted that the premises of the complainant did not fall within the definition of commercial premises. He further submitted that even the complainant was using one of the rooms of his house, for running his homeopathic clinic, as a registered homeopathic medical practitioner, by exerting his professional skills, as a social service. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties were only required to charge tariff of water consumption, from the complainant, considering his premises as residential. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
11. There is, no dispute, with regard to the factum that House No.1186, Sector 43-B, Chandigarh, was allotted to the complainant, vide allotment letter dated 28.03.2003, Annexure C-1. The complainant, himself, admitted that he is a registered medical practitioner, from the Council of Homoeopathic System of Medicine, U.T., Chandigarh, and was, thus, practicing as a homeopathic medical practitioner, in Chandigarh, as he was authorized for the same, vide Chandigarh Administration Letter No.F17(XII)-8824/CHSM/12/208 dated 07.01.1983 Annexure C-2. Admittedly, the complainant is running his clinic, in one of the rooms of his residential house. The question arises, as to at what rate, the complainant was required to be charged, for water consumption, by the Opposite Parties. The Chandigarh Administration framed the Bye-laws, called as the Chandigarh Water Supply Bye-laws, 2011, which have got the force of law. Relevant portion of Bye-law 13 of the Chandigarh Water Supply Bye-laws, 2011, reads as under:-
œ13. Charges for water consumed:
The charges for the water payable by the consumer shall be as follows per month:
i) The water consumed for domestic use in residential premises shall be charged at the following rates (per month):-
(a) First 15 Kilolitres. @ Rs. 2.00 per Kilolitre.
(b) From 15 Kilolitres upto 30 Kilolitres @ Rs. 4.00 per Kilolitre.
(c) From 30 Kilolitres upto 60 KL @ Rs. 6.00 per Kilolitre.
(d) Above 60 KL @ Rs. 8.00 per Kilolitre
ii) Water consumed in the institutions shall be charged as below:
| a | All type of educational Institutions and Hostels attached thereto. | @ Rs. 12.00 per Kilolitre |
| b | Hospitals/Clinics and buildings appurtenant thereto but excluding shops and other commercial establishments. | |
| C | Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research and Hostels attached thereto | |
| d | Community Centre/Clubs recognized by the Chandigarh Administration. | |
| e | Charitable Institutions and hostels attached thereto. | |
| f | Residential buildings or any part thereof being used for professional purposes, for instance, Doctors, Architects, Dentists etc. | |
| g | Dhobi Ghats approved by the Chandigarh Administration. | |
| h | Coaching centres and career institutions.? |
13. The District Forum, no doubt, came to the conclusion that, even if, it was assumed that the complainant was liable to be charged @ Rs.12.00 per kiloliter, as per the afore-extracted relevant portion of Bye-laws, as per copy of the bill Annexure C-4, for total consumption of 45 liters of water, the complainant should have been charged Rs.540/- plus (+) other charges, but, on the other hand, he was billed for Rs.675/- plus (+) other charges. As has been held above, the Opposite Parties, could only charge from the complainant @ Rs.12.00 per kiloliter, for the water consumption, as per the aforesaid Bye-laws. If the Opposite Parties have charged @ Rs.15.00 per kiloliter i.e. in excess, then necessary directions to adjust the amount overcharged, could be made.
14. The District Forum, no doubt, placed reliance on Bachittar Singh Vs. Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, 1993 (1) R.R.R. 453 to hold that the profession of an advocate, could not be said to be a commercial activity. In the instant case, it has been held above that it could not be said that the complainant was running a commercial activity. At the same time, the complainant was required to pay the water consumption charges, at the rates provided in Bye-law 13 ii) f of the Chandigarh Water Supply Bye-laws, 2011. The facts of Bachittar Singh`s case (supra), being clearly distinguishable, no reliance thereon, could be placed, so far as the instant case is concerned.
15. The District Forum was also wrong, in awarding an excessive compensation of Rs.20,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant. It has been held above that the complainant could be charged @ Rs.12.00 per kiloliter, for the consumption of water, and not @ Rs.15.00 per kiloliter. There was a dispute, with regard to the interpretation of various provisions, contained in the Chandigarh Water Supply Bye-laws, 2011. It may be stated here, that the compensation should be commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case, and the injustice caused to the complainant. The compensation should neither be unreasonable, nor unfair nor excessive nor too inadequate. In the instant case, compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000/-, if awarded, can be said to be reasonable, fair and adequate. The compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, awarded by the District Forum, for mental agony and physical harassment, is, thus, reduced to Rs.5,000/-.
16. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is modified, in the following manner:
i. The appellants/Opposite Parties are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant, and charge him @ Rs.12.00 per kiloliter, for consumption of water, in respect of the premises, in question, as per the Chandigarh Water Supply Bye-laws, 2011.
ii. The appellants/Opposite Parties are further directed to adjust the amount, if any, over charged @ Rs.15.00 per kiloliter (arrived at after overhauling the account), in the future bills, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
iii. The appellants/Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-, as compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, instead of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the District Forum.
iv. The appellants/Opposite Parties are further directed to pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.5,000/-, as awarded by the District Forum.
v. The amount of compensation, in the sum of Rs.5,000/-, as mentioned in Clause (iii) above, shall be paid within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, it shall carry interest @7% P.A., from the date of default, till realization, besides payment of cost, awarded by the District Forum, and compliance of other directions.
vi. Any other relief granted, and direction given by the District Forum, which is contrary to, and in variance of this order, subject to the modification, aforesaid, shall stand set aside.
17. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.