DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 472 of 04-08-2014 Decided on 01-04-2015

Sanjeev Goyal aged about 37 years S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar R/o H. No. 148, Phase 1, Model Town, Near T V Tower, Bathinda.

..... Complainant

Versus

District Water Testing Laboratory (Tech. Mission), PWD Public Health Branch, Head Water Works, Bhagu Road, Bathinda, through its Chemist/Incharge

The Executive Officer, Office of Superintending Engineer, Punjab Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Division No. 3, Bhagu Road, Near Model Town Gurudwara, Phase-1, Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum :

Sh. Surinder Mohan, President

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

Present :

For the Complainant : Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, complainant with his counsel Sh. Sham Lal Goyal.

For the opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Goyal, counsel for OPs

O R D E R

Surinder Mohan, President

Brief facts are that complainant is member of Grahak Jago and always provides social service to general public. On 16-7-2014, complainant took 1.25 Ltrs water from RO, Mandi Chowk, Goniana for getting tested from Laboratory and handed over the sample of water to OP No. 1 for testing. OP No. 1 charged testing fee of Rs. 100/- vide receipt No. 2327 dated 16-7-2014. On 17-7-2014, OP No. 1 gave report No. DWTL/Bti/393/2014 wrongly and illegally that water is potable. OP No. 1 has conducted only 15/16 out of 44 tests as per norms of BIS Standard Tests and has not tested Residual, free, Chlorine, Sulphide, Copper Mercury, Total Arsenic, Cyanide, Lead, Zinc, Aluminium, Boron, Ammonia, Barium, Silver, Nickel, Phenolic Compound, Chloramines, Trihalomethanes, Radioactive Materials, Mineral Oil, Pesticides etc., Thus the OPs have failed to test the water as per norms of BIS Standard and the report of potable water issued by OPs is illegal as 44 tests were not conducted. In this way, OPs are exploiting general public, as such there is arbitrariness and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Complainant requested OPs several times to take sample of water again and get 44 tests of the same conducted from laboratory as per norms of BIS standard, Otherwise refund the amount charged from complainant and remove the word 'Water Potable' if there is no arrangement/machines to conduct all the tests as per norms of BIS standard, but the OPs did not give any response to the request of the complainant. Rather OPs always tried to delay the matter on one pretext or other. Due to said act of OPs, complainant is suffering mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and humiliation, as such, complainant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking directions to OPs to supply report of potable water after conducting 44 laboratory tests as per norms of BIS standard or to refund the aforesaid amount and delete the word 'water potable' if there is no arrangement/machines to conduct all the tests as per norms of BIS standard; to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and cost of Rs. 100/-.

OPs filed their joint written version and took several legal objections that complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; he has got no cause of action; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint as the complainant is residing at Bathinda but has taken the water sample from R.O. installed at Mandi Chowk, Goniana. Complaint is bad for non- joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as replying OPs are working under the control of State Government and State Government has not been impleaded as necessary party in the complaint.

On merits, OPs have pleaded that report No. DWTL/Bti/393/2014 dated 17-7-2014 is legal and valid in all respects. The report is a detailed one and it has been clearly mentioned in it that conclusion is based on physical, chemicals, bacteriological tests only. OP No. 1 tested the water sample in question according to specification for potable water as per Bureau of Indian Standards : BIS 10500 1991. OPs have further pleaded that tests has been conducted for which the facility is available with OP No. 1 provided by the State Government and fee has been charged accordingly. This fact was also conveyed to the complainant. The complainant was made clear in this respect that only those tests will be conducted which are mentioned in the test report and these tests are sufficient to know about the quality of potable water. Thereafter, complainant being fully satisfied got the sample of water tested. There is no complaint against the water being supplied to general public at large through RO, water of which has been got tested by the complainant. The complainant never approached OPs after getting the report dated 17-7-2014. OPs have further pleaded that complainant himself admitted that he is residing at Bathinda, but it is strange that he is using the water being supplied at Goniana Mandi. OP No. 1 is functioning for the last more than 20 years and there is no single complaint/court case regarding functioning of OP No. 1. OPs have denied that there is any deficiency or unfair trade practice on their part or complainant is entitled to any compensation. Other paras of complaint have been denied and OPs pray for dismissal of complaint.

In order to prove the case, complainants tendered into evidence Ex. C-1 affidavit of Sanjeev Goyal; Ex. C-2 Receipt dated 16-7-14 for Rs. 100/-; Ex. C-3 Analysis Report dated 17-7-14; Ex. C-3/A Copy of BIS Norms; Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5 legal notice and postal receipt respectively; Ex. C-6 Letter dated 17-12-13; Ex. C-7 another affidavit of Sanjeev Goyal; Ex. C-8 Form A dated 7-7-14 alongwith letter dated 5-9-14 and Ex. C-9 letter dated 13-10-14 addressed to complainant alongwith copy of letter dated 22-9-14.

In order to rebut this evidence, OPs tendered affidavit Ex. OP-1/1 of Sh. Amit Lal Bansal, Head Water Chemist alongwith Identity card of Amit Lal Bansal.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file very carefully.

In this case, complainant who is resident of Bathinda got checked water sample drawn from Goniana Mandi, from the laboratory of OPs and also deposited Rs. 100/- as testing fee vide receipt Ex. C-2. Vide Analysis Report Ex. C-3, OPs declared the sample of water as 'Potable'. In the report detail has been given regarding various elements. The main contention of learned counsel for complainant is that OPs have not tested the sample of water as per BIS Norms. It has been argued that 44 tests were required for checking water sample but only 15 tests were conducted and in this manner OPs are deficient in their service. Learned counsel for complainant has drawn our attention to BIS Norms Ex. C-3/A and Clause 'IV' deals with Strengthening of Water Testing facilities wherein it is mentioned : -

“At present there is a central water testing laboratory at Patiala in addition to district level laboratories at Bathinda, Ferozepur, Amritsar. In order to provide testing facilities nearest to the water supply sccheme, water testing laboratories have been set up at all the 20 district headquarters we well as at seven other divisional head quarter i.e. Pathankot, Rajpura, Anandpur Sahib, Abohar, Fazlika, Malout & Batala. These labs check quality of water according to specifications for potable water as per Bureau of Indian Standards BIS-10500-1991.”

The Laboratories mentioned in this para check the quality of water according to specifications for potable water as per Bureau of Indian Standards : BIS-10500-1991. The parameters which are tested for drinking water supply are 44 as mentioned in para No. 4 of Ex. C-3/A. Learned counsel for OPs has argued that OPs are testing the sample of water as per facilities available in the laboratory and a report dated 17-7-14 Ex. C-3 is legal and is based on BIS Standards/Norms. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that infact water is not potable in Goniana Mandi which has caused water borne diseases including cancer. Learned counsel for OPs has rebutted the argument that no such figures have been brought on file to establish that inhabitants of Goniana Mandi have suffered from water born diseases or suffered from cancer. There is force in the argument addressed by learned counsel for OPs. Moreover, complainant has not got tested the said sample from any higher laboratory to establish that the report given by OPs is wrong.

Learned counsel for OPs has brought to our notice that complainant has pleaded in para No. 4 of complaint that OPs have committed cheating and fraud and therefore, this Forum has absolutely no jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint. There is force in the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for OPs. When complainant pleaded that OPs have cheated and committed fraud with him, it is for the criminal court to take action and it will be out of purview of Consumer Fora.

Learned counsel for complainant has relied upon a case with title D K Chopra Vs. Snack Bar, Revision Petition No. 4090 of 2012 decided on 4-3-14 by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi. We have gone through the case law cited by learned counsel for complainant but the matter in controversy in the said authority is different from the facts of the present complaint. In the above said authority Snack Bar was charging excessive price of 'red bull – energy drink' and Hon'ble National Commission, was pleased to hold that OP has exploited the public, prior to, and after the incident. The public was taken for a ride, under the very nose of the Airport Authority. The OP has no right to keep and misappropriate the public money. It must go back to the public. In these circumstances, Hon'ble National Commission ordered OP to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-, the estimated rough amount with the Consumer Welfare Funds by means of a demand draft drawn in favour of Pay and Accounts Officer- Ministry of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi. But, in the present case, there is no such allegation that OPs are exploiting public by charging excess fee. Therefore, the complainant cannot take any benefit of the above referred case law. In the present case, complainant has failed to establish that OPs are looting the public in any manner or fee is going in the pockets of private persons.

In view of what has been discussed above, the complainant has failed to establish that there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

Let certified copies of order be communicated to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced :

01-04-2015

(Surinder Mohan )

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member