Chairman,BWSSB V/S K.P.Subbaiah - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2310

K.P.Subbaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman,BWSSB - Opp.Party(s)

11 Nov 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2310

K.P.Subbaiah						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Chairman,BWSSB						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 28.10.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 30th DECEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2310/2008 COMPLAINANT K.P. Subbaiah, S/o. Late K.J. Ponnappa, Aged about 70 years, # 104, 2nd Main, 3rd Cross, Maruthi Nagar, Badharappa Layout, Nagashettyhalli, Sanjayanagar Bangalore 560 094. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Chairman, BWSSB, Cauvery Bhavan, K.G. Road, Bangalore 560 009. 2. Chief Engineer, BWSSB, Cauvery Bhavan, K.G. Road, Bangalore 560 009. 3. Asst. Executive Engineer, BWSSB, Bangalore North Division, (Sub-Division N 4) Yelahanka, Bangalore. Advocate (Gurudev. I) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to provide cauvery water supply as promised or refund whatever the amount that is collected towards the supply of the water with compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant is the resident of Badharappa Layout. In the year 2004 BWSSB issued paper publication inviting the residents of the locality to deposit the prescribed fees to get cauvery water supply. Complainant being an ex-service person who has got the house in the said area deposited Rs.8,500/- on 22.07.2004 and also made payment of another Rs.3,640/- on 12.05.2008 and for supply of bore well water he has deposited another Rs.2,050/- in all he paid Rs.14,190/- to the OP. With all that OP has not completed the said project. Though it has laid down the pipelines and fixed some meters to some houses there is no supply of cauvery water as promised. On repeated requests and demands the Chairman of the BWSSB assured to supply the water by the end of August 2007, but till today there is no water supply both cauvery water as well as borewell water. For no fault of his, complainant is made to spend nearly Rs.200/- per water tank to get the water to his house. He is fetching a loss of Rs.1,000/- per month. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Though OP received all the necessary deposits, but failed to discharge its obligation. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version admitting the fact of receipt of the said amount. According to OP the Government of Karnataka has given permission for implementation of cauvery water supply scheme for 7 City Municipal Councils. Of course Byatarayanapura wherein the complainants house is situated is also covered under the said scheme. The project estimated cost is Rs.658.64 crores. OP has taken necessary steps in laying the pipeline and fixing the meters. It has already covered nearly 2,360 houses, but unfortunately only few persons have paid the cost of the meter and other expenditure. The contention of the complainant that borewell water is not supplied is false. Complainant and other residents of Byatarayanapura Layout are enjoying the supply of the water uninterruptly. As regards the cauvery water supply it being a huge project it take some time, soon after the completion of the said project cauvery water will be supplied to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The allegations are false and frivolous. Hence OP is not liable to pay either compensation or refund whatever the deposits that is made. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has got a house at Badharappa Layout coming under the limits of Byatarayanapura Citi Municipal Council. It is also not at dispute that BWSSB gave a paper publication inviting the local residents to deposit the prescribed amount in order to have the facility of cauvery water supply in the year 2004. In pursuance of the said paper publication complainant deposited Rs.8,500/- on 22.07.2004, he paid another Rs.3,640/- for meter fixing on 12.05.2008. Of course in the year 2004 in the month of February he deposited Rs.2,050/- with the Byatarayanapura CMC for supply of borewell water. Now the grievance of the complainant is that though he made substantial deposit to the tune of Rs.14,190/- no cauvery water muchless borewell water is supplied to him. Thus he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 7. It is further contended by the complainant for want of supply of the said water he is forced to purchase water through the tankers by paying Rs.200/- per tank which cost him nearly Rs.1,000/- per month. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP and carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP. The fact that OP has taken over the charge of 7 CMC for the supply of cauvery water is also not at dispute. When complainant approached the Chairman of the BWSSB he was given an assurance that cauvery water supply will be made available by the end of August 2007. Again the said promise is not kept up. Even till today he is not getting the water, thus he is facing both mental agony and financial loss. 8. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that it is a huge project approved by the Government involving an estimated cost of Rs.658.64 crores. According to OP they have laid down pipeline in Badharappa Layout covering nearly 2,360 houses and meters were also fixed and only few persons have paid the charges. There are some formalities to be full filled by the OP in taking over of water supply from the erstwhile Citi Municipal Councils. According to OP complainant and other residents of Badharappa Layout are getting the bore well water continuously, they are not facing any water problem and after the completion of the cauvery water project they will supply the cauvery water. As the project involves huge amount and infrastructure facilities it took some time. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we find the defence of the OP appears to be just and reasonable. 9. Complainant has not filed the affidavit of the other residents to substantiate his allegations that neither they are getting cauvery water nor the borewell water. So in absence of such corroborative evidence from the residents, the bare and vague allegations of the complainant in a cases of like nature rather alone cannot be believed. The fact that BWSSB is not collecting any amount for the supply of the bore well water apart from the deposit already received is also not denied by the complainant. Under such circumstances when the statutory authorities are empowered to implement certain huge projects definitely it depend upon so many aspects including the release of the funds, availability of the material, infrastructure, labour, over and above that availability of the cauvery water. All these facts have to be taken into consideration. It is our common experience that due to lack of proper rainfall there is a shortage of water, whole city is facing water problem in one or the other way including that of frequent breaking of the water pipes, electricity problem, etc. Bearing all these exingencies in mind we find the complaint appears to be pre-mature. 10. Of course the complainant has sought for the refund of whatever the deposits he has made. When complainant is getting the bore well water and availing the services of the OP in one or the other way, in our considered view he is not entitled for the refund of the same, ultimately he is the beneficiary of the said scheme. Probably within a few months or so when the project will be completed. He being the person who has deposited the prescribed fees well in advance may be in the year 2004 will get the priority. When such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant and having note of other impediments faced by the OP in completion of the project it requires sometime. For these reasons we find there is no proof deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of December 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 28.10.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 30th DECEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2310/2008 COMPLAINANT K.P. Subbaiah, S/o. Late K.J. Ponnappa, Aged about 70 years, # 104, 2nd Main, 3rd Cross, Maruthi Nagar, Badharappa Layout, Nagashettyhalli, Sanjayanagar Bangalore 560 094. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Chairman, BWSSB, Cauvery Bhavan, K.G. Road, Bangalore 560 009. 2. Chief Engineer, BWSSB, Cauvery Bhavan, K.G. Road, Bangalore 560 009. 3. Asst. Executive Engineer, BWSSB, Bangalore North Division, (Sub-Division N 4) Yelahanka, Bangalore. Advocate (Gurudev. I) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to provide cauvery water supply as promised or refund whatever the amount that is collected towards the supply of the water with compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant is the resident of Badharappa Layout. In the year 2004 BWSSB issued paper publication inviting the residents of the locality to deposit the prescribed fees to get cauvery water supply. Complainant being an ex-service person who has got the house in the said area deposited Rs.8,500/- on 22.07.2004 and also made payment of another Rs.3,640/- on 12.05.2008 and for supply of bore well water he has deposited another Rs.2,050/- in all he paid Rs.14,190/- to the OP. With all that OP has not completed the said project. Though it has laid down the pipelines and fixed some meters to some houses there is no supply of cauvery water as promised. On repeated requests and demands the Chairman of the BWSSB assured to supply the water by the end of August 2007, but till today there is no water supply both cauvery water as well as borewell water. For no fault of his, complainant is made to spend nearly Rs.200/- per water tank to get the water to his house. He is fetching a loss of Rs.1,000/- per month. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. Though OP received all the necessary deposits, but failed to discharge its obligation. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version admitting the fact of receipt of the said amount. According to OP the Government of Karnataka has given permission for implementation of cauvery water supply scheme for 7 City Municipal Councils. Of course Byatarayanapura wherein the complainants house is situated is also covered under the said scheme. The project estimated cost is Rs.658.64 crores. OP has taken necessary steps in laying the pipeline and fixing the meters. It has already covered nearly 2,360 houses, but unfortunately only few persons have paid the cost of the meter and other expenditure. The contention of the complainant that borewell water is not supplied is false. Complainant and other residents of Byatarayanapura Layout are enjoying the supply of the water uninterruptly. As regards the cauvery water supply it being a huge project it take some time, soon after the completion of the said project cauvery water will be supplied to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The allegations are false and frivolous. Hence OP is not liable to pay either compensation or refund whatever the deposits that is made. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has got a house at Badharappa Layout coming under the limits of Byatarayanapura Citi Municipal Council. It is also not at dispute that BWSSB gave a paper publication inviting the local residents to deposit the prescribed amount in order to have the facility of cauvery water supply in the year 2004. In pursuance of the said paper publication complainant deposited Rs.8,500/- on 22.07.2004, he paid another Rs.3,640/- for meter fixing on 12.05.2008. Of course in the year 2004 in the month of February he deposited Rs.2,050/- with the Byatarayanapura CMC for supply of borewell water. Now the grievance of the complainant is that though he made substantial deposit to the tune of Rs.14,190/- no cauvery water muchless borewell water is supplied to him. Thus he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 7. It is further contended by the complainant for want of supply of the said water he is forced to purchase water through the tankers by paying Rs.200/- per tank which cost him nearly Rs.1,000/- per month. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP and carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP. The fact that OP has taken over the charge of 7 CMC for the supply of cauvery water is also not at dispute. When complainant approached the Chairman of the BWSSB he was given an assurance that cauvery water supply will be made available by the end of August 2007. Again the said promise is not kept up. Even till today he is not getting the water, thus he is facing both mental agony and financial loss. 8. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that it is a huge project approved by the Government involving an estimated cost of Rs.658.64 crores. According to OP they have laid down pipeline in Badharappa Layout covering nearly 2,360 houses and meters were also fixed and only few persons have paid the charges. There are some formalities to be full filled by the OP in taking over of water supply from the erstwhile Citi Municipal Councils. According to OP complainant and other residents of Badharappa Layout are getting the bore well water continuously, they are not facing any water problem and after the completion of the cauvery water project they will supply the cauvery water. As the project involves huge amount and infrastructure facilities it took some time. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we find the defence of the OP appears to be just and reasonable. 9. Complainant has not filed the affidavit of the other residents to substantiate his allegations that neither they are getting cauvery water nor the borewell water. So in absence of such corroborative evidence from the residents, the bare and vague allegations of the complainant in a cases of like nature rather alone cannot be believed. The fact that BWSSB is not collecting any amount for the supply of the bore well water apart from the deposit already received is also not denied by the complainant. Under such circumstances when the statutory authorities are empowered to implement certain huge projects definitely it depend upon so many aspects including the release of the funds, availability of the material, infrastructure, labour, over and above that availability of the cauvery water. All these facts have to be taken into consideration. It is our common experience that due to lack of proper rainfall there is a shortage of water, whole city is facing water problem in one or the other way including that of frequent breaking of the water pipes, electricity problem, etc. Bearing all these exingencies in mind we find the complaint appears to be pre-mature. 10. Of course the complainant has sought for the refund of whatever the deposits he has made. When complainant is getting the bore well water and availing the services of the OP in one or the other way, in our considered view he is not entitled for the refund of the same, ultimately he is the beneficiary of the said scheme. Probably within a few months or so when the project will be completed. He being the person who has deposited the prescribed fees well in advance may be in the year 2004 will get the priority. When such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant and having note of other impediments faced by the OP in completion of the project it requires sometime. For these reasons we find there is no proof deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of December 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.