BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA 1215 of 2013 against CC 162 of 2012 , Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy
Between:
V.A. Padmakaram
S/o. V. Padmanabham
HIG 247, 6th Phase
KPHB Colony,
Kukatpally,
Ranga Reddy Dist. *** Appellant/
Complainant.
Vs.
1) Hyderabad Metropolitan
Water Supply & Sewerage Board
Rep. by its General Manager
Operation & Management
KPHB Colony, Kukatpally
Ranga Reddy Dist.
2) Hyderabad Metropolitan
Water Supply & Sewerage Board
Rep. by its Managing Director
Near Khairatabad Circle
Khairatabad, Hyderabad. *** Respondents/
Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. V. Veerabhadra Chary
Counsel for the Respondents: Served.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT
SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
Oral Order : 06/08/2014
(Per Hon’ble Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada, President)
***
1) Complainant is the appellant and this appeal is directed against the order dt. 31.10.2013 made by the Dist. Forum at Ranga Reddy in CC 162/2012 whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.
2) The case according to the complainant is that he was allotted a quarter bearing No. HIG 247 by the Housing Board and he was provided with amenities such as electricity and water supply. He occupied the said quarter and was living with his family members comfortably and he was provided with drinking water supply from Op1. However, because of some changes made by the Water Board to the pipelines in the area, water pressure had gone down gradually and ultimately the complainant was not getting the water at his residence. In those circumstances, he approached the grievance cell of the Water Board and made several complaints but in vain. Thereafter, he addressed letters on 2.4.2012 and 17.4.2012 to the Opposite Parties to provide proper water supply. However, as the Opposite Parties did not attend to any repair work to see that proper supply of water is given to the complainant, he approached the Dist. Forum and filed the said complaint.
3) A detailed counter was filed stating that on receipt of said complaints from the complainant and others they have attended to the repair works and as there was problem with the water meter, they replaced the said water meter on 1.11.2012 and they have also collected an amount of Rs. 600/- and the same was marked as Ex. B1.
4) The Dist. Forum having considered the entire material placed on record and taking the fact that the water meter was replaced on 1.11.2012 and there is no dispute with regard to the said replacement of water meter and the complainant has not explained any further grievance subsequent to change of the meter, it dismissed the complaint.
5) The said order is questioned in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a fact that the water meter was replaced but the supply of water was not properly maintained. He placed reliance on some of the bills pertaining to the months of March, 2013 to October, 2013.
In fact, said bills were not marked before the Dist. Forum and they are not part of the record, and in those circumstances, we are unable to look into the said bills. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he filed an application in FAIA No. 3109/2013 with a prayer to accept the said bills as additional evidence. If it is a fact that there was irregular supply of water supply etc., and the same fact can as well be brought to the notice of the Dist. Forum. In those circumstances, the order impugned in this appeal is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Dist. Forum for fresh consideration of the CC. It is needless to observe that the documents on which learned counsel for the appellant is placing reliance can as well be filed before the Dist. Forum, and the Dist. Forum may accept them as additional evidence. Accordingly this appeal is disposed of. No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
*pnr
UP LOAD – O.K.
