BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.50/2009 Order dated this the 31st day of July 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.K.V.Sheshadri, Advocate & Notary, S/o Late Vydyanathaiah, 1st Cross, Chamundeshwarinagar, Mandya. (IN-PERSON) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Supply Maintenance Sub-Division, Bandigowda Layout, Mandya. (By Sri.H.M.Narayana., Advocate) Date of complaint 15.05.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 02.06.2009 Date of order 31.07.2009 Total Period 1 Month 29 Days Result The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainant against the Opposite party claiming Rs.1,050/- and also damages of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a customer of the Opposite party by using water facility. During the month of January end 2009 and first week of February 2009, there was no water supply to the complainants house. In this regard, during second week of February 2009, when the Complainant contacted the Opposite party Office, apart from several oral complaints regarding non-supply of water, the Opposite party has informed that the water connection was changed in view of the damage to the pipe line by sand loaded lorry. The other customers have already got water supply to their houses through new connection which is already installed six months back. It is the duty of the 2nd Opposite party to inform the non-supply of water in view of closing the water line due to damage by loaded lorry. Further, it is the duty of the Opposite party to give connection to the customers by incurring all the material costs for new connection. But, the Opposite party sub-ordinates informed that the complainant may get the water connection through another water supply line. For that purpose, the Complainant had purchased materials worth of Rs.450/- from another line to get water connection. The department water man demanded labour charges of Rs.800/-. But the Complainant engaged different plumber for which he paid Rs.600/-. Due to non-information of disconnection of water to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service and complainant suffered a lot getting the water supply from the well. 3. The Opposite party has filed version admitting that the complainant is a Consumer. It is denied that there was no water supply to the Complainant house in the month of January and February 2009 and on enquiry, the Opposite party Office informed that the water connection was changed in view of the damage to the pipe line by the sand loaded lorry. Denying other allegations made in the complaint, the Opposite party has pleaded that as the Government sanctioned Rs.675 lakhs for modernization of water supply in Mandya City since the old pipes were dilapidated condition 3 inch pipe line was fixed and at that time the customers have to get water connection from the new pipe line. There is no provision for the Opposite party to reimburse the expenditure for getting connection from the new line. Already 900 to 1000 customers got connection to their houses from the new line and it is left to the customers to get water connection from the new line from their personal expenditure. Therefore, the Opposite party is not liable to reimburse any amount to the Complainant and the Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. During trial, the Complainant has filed affidavit and produced the documents Ex.C.1 & C.2. The Opposite party Official has filed affidavit and produced the documents Ex.R.1 to R.3. At the time of hearing, the Opposite party counsel has produced the Xerox copy of the Government order and voucher. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Complainant proves that there was no water supply to his house during the month of January end of 2009 and first week of February 2009 and when contacted Opposite party informed that the water connection was changed in view of the damage to the pipe line by sand loaded lorry? 2. Whether the Complainant was put to inconvenience due to non-supply of water? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to reimburse of Rs.1,050/- to the complainant towards the expenditure for connection to the new water line? 4. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 5. Whether the complainant is entitled to the amount claimed? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The undisputed fact is that the Complainant is a Consumer of the Opposite party availing water supply. The copy of the Government Order clearly proves that Rs.675.00 lakhs were released for modernisation of the water supply to the Mandya City by providing new water line and water supply machines. According to the Opposite party evidence, the new line i.e., 3 inch water line provided in the locality of the complainant in July 2007. According to the evidence, after all the customers got connection to the new pipe line, the old pipe was removed. The cross-examination witness of the Opposite party reveals that the complainant has contacted the Assistant Engineer and another Officer Ramakrishna, Lineman through phone. The Opposite party witness has admitted once the Complainant contacted that there was no water supply, but he could not remember the date and he could not remember the complainant informed that the old pipe were damaged due to running of lorry. He has denied that in the first week of February, the complainant informed about the damage of the pipe, they informed that a new pipe would be fixed. As per Ex.R.2 & R.3 on 02.08.2007, the Opposite party Executive Engineer has got issued pamphlets and paper publication, the customers are informed to get connection from the new line by paying the arrears. So, when in July 2007 the new water line was fixed in the Mandya City, the public would be aware of it and it cannot be said that the complainant is not aware that new line was fixed in the road of his house and only on his enquiry in February 2009, he was informed that new line is put up. If actually, there was no water supply in the last week of January 2009 and first week of February 2009, the water supply problem will be for the entire street and neighborhood lines. According to the Complainant, when he contacted, the Opposite party informed that the water connection was changed in view of the damage pipe line by sand loaded lorry. The Complainant has not examined any neighborer to prove that there was no water supply for nearly two weeks and the residents have complained to the Opposite party Authority. The non-supply of water for two weeks to the house of the complainant only cannot be accepted. It is natural that due to electric problem and in-sufficient water, water supply may not be available for one or two days and not for two weeks, because the month of January and first week of February is not summer period. If actually the Opposite party had informed that the water connection was changed in view of damage to the pipe line by sand loaded lorry, the entire lines of water connection would have been affected and the residents of the locality would have been affected due to non-supply of water. 9. When the department provided new water line spending lakhs of rupees for modernization of the water supply, it is the duty of the each customer to get connection from the new line and the Opposite party will not provide connection to each house from its pocket, it is only duty of the Opposite party has to provide water line to each street and it is open to the customers to get connection from the new line and even it is open to the fresh customer to get connection by depositing the prescribed amount. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that the Opposite party is liable to reimburse the cost of Rs.1,050/- spent for getting connection from the new water line to his house is not tenable and without any basis, though, the Complainant has produced the bill Ex.C.2 for having spent Rs.450/- for the material for water connection. It cannot be accepted that the notification and receipt for having got printed the hand bills through the printer by the Opposite party as per Ex.R.3 for the purpose of this case. Under these circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove that the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not supplying water for two weeks as alleged in the complaint and further, the complainant has failed to prove that the Opposite party is liable to reimburse Rs.1,050/- towards the cost of connection from the new line from to house. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the amount claimed or any damages. 10. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 31st day of July 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
