ORDER DELIVERED BY Shri. G.M.KUMBAR HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1. This is complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against opposite party (herein after referred to as OP) to supply water daily through water tap connection installed in the premises on the 1^st floor of CMC House No.2006/2, Karwar and direct the OP to return ½ H.P Water pump and to also to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards general and special damages along with cost on the allegations of deficiency in service.

2) Brief facts of the case are as hereunder:-

The complainant is having water tap connection from OP since April 2016 and paying the bills regularly. Unfortunately the water is not coming in the Tap and it was completely stopped in January 2017. The complainant has installed a water pump of ½ H.P., so as to pull the water from the tap in the premises. The complainant engaged the service of maid servant to bring water from the well of the neighbour by paying daily wages of Rs.200/-. On 9^th June 2017 one Mr. Pradeep Naik who is the personnel of OP has stolen the said water pump. It is the duty of the OP to supply the water daily, but has failed to discharge its duty. The Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Karwar intimated vide letter dated:1/03/2017 that the OP is responsible to supply water to the consumers regularly and properly. In spite of several requests and notice, there is no response from the OP. This act of OP amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

3. The OP appeared through counsel and filed written version by contending inter-alia that the complainant fixed the water pump (electric motor) directly to the service line (pipe) and was dragging the water to his overhead tank which is prohibited under Bye Law No.13 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Water Supply) Bye Laws. This sucking of the water by use of electrical pump resulted in low pressure in water pipe of neighbourhoods and his own brother residing in ground floor of the same premises complained about the same. The water supply operator inspected the premises of complainant with subordinate staff and reported the illegal connections and as per order of inspector, the said 0.5 H.P. motor pump was disconnected from the service line and seized in the presence of complainant. The contention of complainant that the water supply was completely stopped during January and the complainant engaged madeservant to bring water from the well by paying Rs.200/- daily wages is denied as false. The OP further contended that as per the order of the Civil Court in O.S.No.214/2012 in between complainant and his brother, the complainant was permitted to take water connection from the OP without constructing the underground water tank. But he can store the water in plastic or fiber tank and lift the same to overhead tank. The OP further contended that the complainant had also filed Consumer Complaint against this OP at CC No.90/2014 for water connection which was dismissed as devoid of merit on 17/1/2015. Therefore there is no any deficiency of service on the part of OP. Hence the complaint be dismissed.   

4. During the course of enquiry, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence as CW-1 and produced some documents. The OP filed affidavit evidence of its Officer as RW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.R-1 to R-8. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

5. The following points arise for our consideration-

1. Whether the complainant has proved that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
3. What order?

6. Our findings on the above points are as hereunder:-

1. In negative.
2. Partly in affirmative.
3. As per final order for the following:

R  E  A  S  O  N  S

7. Point No.1 & 2: Though the complainant has alleged in complaint that the water supply to his house is completely stopped from January 2017, now during the course of argument it is submitted by complainant that at present there is no problem in water supply to his house. During the course of enquiry the concerned officials of OP and AEE of KUWS Karwar were summoned before the Forum and they also submitted that at present there is no scarcity of water and there is sufficient force in water supply and that they are supplying the water to the said locality regularly. The complainant also admits that at present he is getting sufficient water from the tap. Therefore the first prayer of complainant regarding supply of water to his house is complied by the OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Because the water supply depends on availability of water and pressure of the water. If there is sufficient pressure, availability of water and staff, the OP is liable to supply sufficient water on daily base. In summer season there may not be much force of water. There is no any separate valve for supply water to the house of complainant. The valve will have to be installed at one place for supply of water to entire locality. Due to low pressure of water, it may not go up to first floor automatically and in such case the complainant has to install fiber or plastic water tank/swamp at ground floor and lift the same through pump. Therefore every consumer cannot accept the water supply directly to overhead tank on the first floor for all the times in year. 

8. The CMS has got power to inspect water supply lines and if any consumer is dragging the water directly from service line with help of electric motor, it has got right to disconnect such water supply and seize the electric motor. In this case the OP got inspected the service line connected to the house of complainant and found that complainant was sucking the water directly from the line with help of ½ H.P. Water pump. Therefore the OP has rightly seized the electric motor as per rules by conducting panchanama and that enquiry against complainant is initiated. Therefore there is no any deficiency in service on the part of OP in seizing the electric motor.

9. Now it appears that the problem regarding water supply to the house of complainant is resolved and the CMC is supplying the water regularly. Therefore in order to end the dispute between complainant and OP and also considering the fact that complainant is Ex-serviceman and Senior Citizen, it is necessary to direct the OP to return ½ H.P. Motor to the complainant. However the advocate for OP submitted that the complainant may again use the said motor to suck the water directly from the service line. The apprehension of the OP can be met out by imposing necessary condition on the complainant with regard to use of the motor. Therefore we hold that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of OP. However it is necessary to direct OP to return the ½ H.P motor to the complainant on condition that he should not use the same to drag the water directly from tap connection. Accordingly we answer point no.1 in negative and point no.2 partly in affirmative. 

10) Point No.3:- In view of the findings on point no.1 and 2, we proceed to pass the following:–

-: O R D E R :-

The complaint filed U/Sec.12 of C.P.Act is dismissed with following direction.

The OP is directed to return ½ H.P. electric motor to the complainant on condition that the complainant should not use the said motor to drag the water directly from tap connection.

The copies of this order shall be supplied to both the parties on free of cost.

(Dictated to the stenographer and got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 23/3/2018)

SD/-                                                                SD/-

(Shri. Raju N. Metri)                                     (Shri. G.M. Kumbar)                                                               

        Member                                                 Hon’ble  President

ANNEXURE in CC.No.51/2017

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant.

1. CW-1 ── Complainant Ashok Dattatray Joshi,

Documents marked on behalf of the complainant.

        NIL

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OP

1. RW-1      ──   S.  Yogeshwar s/o: Sridhar, Commissioner,

Documents marked on behalf of the OP

1. Ex.R-1    ──   Attested copy of complaint. 

2) Ex.R-2    ──   Attested Order copy of CMC Karwar,

                                  dtd:2/6/2017

 3) Ex.R-3    ──   Attested copy of Report of P.V.Naik

                                  water supply operator, dated: 5/6/2017

4) Ex.R-4    ──   Attested Order copy of CMC Karwar,

                          dated: 8/6/2017

5) Ex.R-5    ──   Attested copy of Report of the water

                                  supply operator to CMC

6.  Ex.R-6    ──   Attested copy of  Seizure Panchanama

                       dated: 9/6/2017

7) Ex.R-7    ──   Attested copy Order CC No.90/2014,

                                  DCF Karwar

8) Ex.R-8    ──   Attested order copy of IA No.III

                                  in O.S. No.215/2012.

                   SD/-                                                      SD/-

       (Shri. Raju N. Metri)                          (Shri. G.M. Kumbar)                                                               

              Member                                      Hon’ble  President