Complaint No.214/6.8.2009.

Decided on : 19.11.2009


Manjit Singh S/o Sh.Hansa Singh, resident of Prof.Achru Singh Wali Gali, Ward No.12, Lalluana Road, Tehsil and District Mansa.


..... Complainant.


VERSUS



1. Nagar Council, Budhlada through its Executive Officer, Budhlada,

Tehsil Budhlada, District, Mansa.


2. Sub Divisional Engineer, Water Supply and Sewerage Department,

Water Works, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District, Mansa.



..... Opposite Parties.


Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

.....


Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

Sh. A.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

Sh. S.K.Chhabra, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

Before: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President.

Sh.Sarat Chander, Member.

Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member.


ORDER:-

Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President.


This complaint has been filed by Sh.Manjit Singh son of Sh. Hansa Singh, a resident of Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the Act), against the opposite parties giving them direction, to ensure uninterrupted supply of potable water, to his house situated at Prof.Achru Singh Wali Gali and for payment of litigation expenses in the sum of Rs.50,000/-.

Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the OP No.1, is supplying water to the persons, who had secured water connection, in the municipal area of the town of Mansa. The contract for the said purpose, has been awarded, by the OP No.1, in favour of the OP No.2, who is collecting charges, from the consumers on his behalf. The water connection bearing No.242A-1/5271 is installed in the house of the complainant, and since the date of its installation, the complainant, had been making the payment of amount of bills drawn, upon him, by the opposite parties, for consumption of water through the water connection in question, as such, he is consumer under the opposite parties, qua the said connection, through which no water is being supplied for a period of last three years. The opposite parties, have been contacted several times personally and on telephone by the complainant, but they have failed to ensure the supply of water, to his house, as such, there is deficiency in service on their part, because of which the complainant, has been subjected to mental and physical harassment. Hence this complaint.

On being put to notice, Opposite Party No.1 filed written version, resisting the complaint, taking preliminary objections; that complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties, as answering opposite party, is left with no concern, of supply of water and collection of water charges and that complainant is not a consumer under the answering opposite party within the ambit of its definition given in the Act, as such, complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs. On merits, it is submitted, that as per the provisions of the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1976, it is the duty of the OP No.2, to ensure supply of regular and clean water, with full pressure, to the public. It is also submitted, that as per Order No.270 dated 16.7.1985, task of supply of water, in the urban area and maintenance of water works, was assigned, by the answering opposite party, to the OP No.2. It is also submitted, that in Appeal No.873 dated 27.3.1997, decided by the Hon'ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh, titled as Nagar Council, Mansa versus Jagjit Singh & others, direction has been given, to supply clean and regular water, for a period of 8 hours in the town i.e. 4 hours each in the area falling on either side of the railway line, but vide resolution No.63 dated 2.10.1998 and order No.NCM/662 dated 29.9.1998, task of water supply, maintenance of sewerage system and collection of charges, was assigned to the OP No.2, by the OP No.1, as such, he is liable to supply water with full pressure, for 8 hours, to the people living, in the urban area of town of Mansa. It is further submitted, that no water charges, are being claimed, by the OP No.1, from the consumers, after transfer of powers to the OP No.2. Rest of averments made in complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with special costs.

The opposite party No.2, has filed separately written version, resisting the complaint, taking preliminary objections; that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that complaint is not maintainable and is bad for mis joinder of necessary parties; that answering opposite party, is not engaged in any commercial activity, because nominal charges, are being levied, for supply of water and maintenance of sewerage system, as such, he does not fall, in the purview of the definition of consumer, under the Act; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint and that the answering opposite party, is a statutory body engaged in welfare of the people, as such , the complaint it is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted, that connection for supply of water, has been issued, to the inhabitants of the area, by the OP No.1 and the answering opposite party works as a agent and pays the service charges to the OP No.1, for rendering of service for supply of water and maintenance of sewerage system. It is submitted that a sum of Rs.1.5 crores, is outstanding towards the OP No.1, on account of maintenance charges, for the previous year and a sum of approximately Rs.40 lacs for the present financial year. It is submitted that it is unbelievable, that complainant remained silent, for a period of 3 years and did not think, to make any representation, to any authority, showing his concern, about the non supply of water, through the water connection in question. It is also contended that answering opposite party tries its best to provide service to the consumers, but due to installation of use of Tulu Pumps (i.e. water lifting motor operated with electricity), in an unauthorized manner, by the people, it is not possible to supply water with full pressure, at the fag end. At the same time, it is submitted, that the OP No.1, has allowed use of tulu pump, for supply of water, against payment of some charges, by the consumers and the answering opposite party, is supplying potable water, free of charges, to the houses where the total area did not exceed 125 square yards and 50 percent of the houses, were covered, by the said scheme. It is submitted, that Government, has decided to expand the infrastructure, for which funds have been released and water tank of the capacity of 3 lacs gallons and its construction, is under progress, but it will consume a period of 4-6 months, to ensure the additional supply of water to the inhabitants. It is also submitted, that supply of water, for drinking purpose, is sufficient, but people have generally constructed large sized water tanks for use of water to wash clothes, utensils, sprinkling, gardening and other purposes and because of misuse of water by them, some consumers, are deprived of their right, to get adequate amount of supply of water, which is a sin against the humanity. Rest of averments made in complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with special costs.

4. On being called upon by this Forum , to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ext C-1 and copies of document Ext.C-2 to C-8 and closed evidence. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 closed his evidence after tendering copies of document Exhibit OP-1 to OP-8, whereas counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Surinder Goyal and copies of documents Exhibit OP- 9 to OP-12 and closed his evidence.

5. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone through, the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance.

6. At the outset learned counsel for the OP No.1 Sh.A.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate, has submitted that job for maintenance and supply of water and sewerage system, including collection of service charges, from the consumers, in the town, has been transferred, to OP No.2, by OP No.1, under the statute and Local Bodies, has merely reserved its right, to make up the deficiency, in income and expenditure, as such, it is the liability of the OP No.2, alone to ensure proper and regular supply of potable water, to the consumers in the town. Learned counsel further argued, that as OP No.1, has no control over the supply of water and collection of service charges, as such, no deficiency in service, can be attributed to it and complaint against it, is liable to be dismissed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2, has argued that huge amount, is outstanding towards the OP No.1, who has exempted the owners of the plot upto the area of 125 square yards and has permitted consumers to use "Tulu Pumps", to increase the pressure of water, in their premises and their difficulties cannot be settled without the intervention of the State Government and local administration. Learned counsel urged that OP No.2, is merely acting as an agent of OP No.1, as such, even in case there is any deficiency in service, then it is the liability of the OP No.1, to improve the supply of water, in the town.

8. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel, for the opposite parties, have failed to sound well with us, because it was earlier the statutory duty of the Local Body, to supply water to the residents of the town including the consumers, who have secured the water connection, for their premises, before the coming into force of Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986. The task of supply of water, has been transferred, by the OP No.1 to the OP No.2 vide resolution dated 29.9.1998 Ext.OP-4. The careful perusal of the said document reveals that Local Body, has transferred the task of maintenance and supply of water, to the OP No.2, including the power to collect service charges, from the consumers. It retained the liability, to fill the financial gap, between the income and expenditure, accrued for the said purpose, by the OP No.2. In case any amount, is outstanding towards the Local Body, on account of water charges, due to grant of concession of some special category, of consumers or some other concession has been given, then OP No.2, can enforce the remedy, for recovery of the amount, from the Local Body, but consumers of water supply cannot be allowed to suffer due to any internal

dispute between the opposite parties. The various clauses of resolution, also indicate, that possibility of re-transfer of task of supply of potable water, to the consumers, by the OP No.2 to OP No.1, in future, cannot be ruled out. As such, both the opposite parties, are to shoulder the liability to ensure adequate supply of potable water, to the premises of the consumers, in the town.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the OP No.2 has also submitted that complainant, has neither filed any application, nor any representation, to the higher authorities, alleging deficiency in service and OP No.2, has acquired sufficient funds under which they have initiated action, about six months ago for improvement of the supply of water, to the houses of the consumers, as such, there is no deficiency in service on his part and complainant, has no cause of action, to file the complaint.

10. Learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that factum of non supply of water, to the premises of the complainant, is corroborated, by the report of the Local Commissioner, which has been admitted, by the OP No.1 and, in his written version not been specifically denied, by OP No.2.

11. We are not impressed by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the OP No.2, because, in our opinion, inadequate supply of water, to the premises of the complainant, is deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the opposite parties, who are charging adequate amount, from him for the purpose. In his written version OP No.1, has categorically admitted the non supply of inadequate supply of water to the house of the complainant. He has also placed series of documents on record showing that representation made by various consumers, in the town, about non supply of water, had been sent to the OP No.2, for redressal of their grievances. This fact is also evident from the copies of documents, tendered in evidence by the OPNo.2 also, who has also not specifically denied deficiency in service in supply of water, to the house of the complainant in his written version. As such, this fact is deemed to have been admitted by him. Moreover, during the pendency of the proceedings, Sh.Rishu Kumar Singla, Advocate, was appointed as Local Commissioner, to visit the premises of the complainant at appropriate time and report about the extent of supply of water, at the time supplied to the house of the complainant. In his report Ext. C-2, the Local Commissioner, has reported that none of the official on behalf of the opposite parties, appeared at the time of his visit to the house of the complainant despite advance notice served by him, upon them about his visit. As per his report, no water was supplied through the water tap, laid in the house of the complainant, at 9.30 A.M. on 31.8.2009, at the time of his visit. The opposite parties have not made any request, to cross examine the Local Commissioner and they have also not filed any objection against his report. Therefore, his report, coupled with other facts borne on record, as discussed above, cannot be brushed aside by us. As such, we are of the view that deficiency in supply of water, on the part of the opposite parties, is clearly demonstrated, because of which complainant, has suffered mental and physical harassment and has incurred avoidable expenditure, for filing of the instant complaint, seeking intervention of this Forum.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and direct the OP No.2, to ensure proper supply of water, to the house of the complainant, for two hours each in the morning and evening, with further direction, to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-, on account of compensation for mental and physical harassment and a sum of Rs.1,000/-, on account of costs, incurred by the complainant, for filing of instant complaint. In case the task of supply of water, is again returned or resumed by OP No.1, then the same instructions, shall be applicable to him, in letter and spirit, about supply of water. The compliance of this order be made by OP No.2 within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

13. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record.

I residence of yakutpura hyd, bearing house no. 17-3-125. Imambada.
we have a problem in the whole area of drainage water coming in water taps, we already complaint several times but till know there is no action.
Since more than 6months we all are facing this problem
even they don't supply drinking water through water tanks,we are facing health problems especially the kids and old age people.
I kindly request you to consider my complaint as earliest.

Thanking you

Mohd Yousufuddin

hamre village kohla joki hanumangarh distric me h wahan water department wale shi tarah se water supply nahi kr rhe h.yahan bdi tanki hone ke bavjood bi pani gharo tak nhi ja rha h.uper se employes villagers se ladte h ki aap 26 rup. hi to dete ho to pani kuon de hum.jo dete h usse gujara kro.Nahro ka pani supply krne ki bjay tube well ka pani de dete h.