DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
………………………………
Presents:-
- Sri P. Samantara,
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 31st day of August 2016.
C.C. No. 72 of 2014.
Saroj Kumar Misra,age-58 yars son of late Sankar Prasad Mishra.
Resident of Rameswar Nagar (Bolangir Town) P.O/P.S & Dist-
Bolangir.
.. .. .. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.Executie Engineer, P.H.Divisio,Bolangir.
At/P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
2.Junior Engineer,P.H.Division (Old Town) Bolangir.
At/P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
3.Sub Divisioal Officer,P.H.Division,Bolangir,
At/P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
4.Superintending Engineer,P.H.Circle Sambalpur.
At/P.O/P.S/Dist-Sambalpur.
5.Chief Engineer, P.H.Urban, Bhubaneswar,Odisha.
.. .. .. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv. for the complainant- Sri S.P:.Mishra & P.K.Mishra.
Adv.for the O.Ps - None.
Date of filing of the case – 16.10.2014
Date of order - 31.08.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
In adumbrate, the complainant is resident of Rameswar Nagar, Bolangir town and taken PHD water connection since 1999. It is averred the department has allotted consumer No.1297(i). Also submitted the water charges paid in lump sum of Rs 5,200/- vide receipt No.07690000 on dated 14.10.2014 sincerely.
2. The complainant also added he used to pay monthly water bill and not a defaulter, where as the PHD water as supplied is not getting regularly since the installation of connection, the regular flow water has since been totally stopped being of a fact. The complaint lodged not yield any result on either heeded by the Superintendent Engineer P:.H. Circle, Sambalpur and P.H. Section located at College Square, Bolangir. Although received a consolation letter from Supdt. Eng. P.H. Circle, Sambalpur under letter No.10937 dt.05.10.2010 in mentioned that necessary steps are being taken with to receive of supply constraint.
3. Further submitted that non supply of water for domestic consumption, has incurred of monthly Rs1,500/- in procuring from out source by water carrier man on his part. Such chronic irregularity in non-supply water to the area and to the domestic supply is a gross negligence on the part of the P.H.Deptt. and O.Ps are held liable for jointly and severally for this deficiency.
4. Praying a direction be passed to the Opposite parties to restore the normal water supply to the resident of the complainant or otherwise the bill raised be exempted and also pay for mental agony and harassment sustained, hitherto. Relied on letters and bills in photo copies and affidavit.
5. In pursuance to notice, the O.Ps appeared and submitted in admission that the complainant has taken w/s connection for his domestic use in the year 1999 and P.H.Division was created in the year 2000.
6. The O.Ps also submitted, the monthly water charges accumulated in dues as Rs 7,898/- but the petitioner has deposited Rs 5,200/- vide money receipt No.076900, Book No.30760, dt.14.10.2014 in lump sum. He did not pay the water (tax) charges in time, it is false in telling that, he is sincere and punctual in his monthly water bill payment. The O.Ps admitted, the water supply to Bolangir town is effected and regular. Like other consumer he is getting water from supply line in regular intervals. The extension connection from main pipe may have the problem in non flow of the water to his household tap.
7. Further contended, no complain from other consumers of the area, has not been received and it is tested on dt.11.11.2014,that the supply is continuing in the same main line, to the area and other residence/domestic consumer and same is explained before the family member of the complainant in present. So the allegation is totally baseless, false and misleading as because it is revealed the petitioner has taken additional un-authorized connection from the new commissioned 160mm dia UPVC pipeline without due permission from the authority. Also installed an un-authorized pump set with the old existing service connection which attracts imposition of penalty and penal action as per the prevailing water works rule along with criminal proceeding against the petitioner. Prayed there is no negligence or deficiency of service rather un-authorized connection be taken into consideration during process of adjudication. Relied on Odisha Water works rules (Urban local Bodies), in photo copies.
8. Heard and perused the record with relevant documents.
9. The submission and contentions put forth by the respective parties, give way to the core question of consumer and entitled to compensation for any deficiency.
10. On the outset, the complainant is a consumer in the year 1999 and where as the PHD created in the year 2000 and in continuation of day to day water supply he is a consumer, but it is observed, the amount deposited on dt.06.02.1999 amounting to Rs 3,030/- relates to roading cutting, initial deposit etc. Subsequent deposit or payment of monthly bills cheques is not regular but in lump sum payment of Rs 5,200/- (Rupees Five thousand two hundred) on dated 14.10.2014 conspicuously confer a right to be entitled as a consumer in payment of the aforesaid consideration under the law.
11. The other core issue come to the fore is whether the O.P is liable for deficiency of service or not ?
12. Paying water tax does not confer a right to be entitled as a consumer as because the tax collected for the sovereign task of the State and collected in supply of water to roadside standing posts, whereas water bills are collected in subscription of water supply to the household/domestic consumer and residence for domestic consumption and such retainment of domestic consumption in connection to the main supply line within the locality and paying the water bills confers the right to be a consumer within the provision of the Act. In this case both the parties lacks the illumination on the term of water tax and water bill/charges as required to.
13. We observe supply of PHD water in the main supply line to the entire town is not regular or punctual due to water availability and geographical constraint, but even in such irregular supply in gap of two or three days, if not flow to the residence or consumers connection line, is a serious one & casts doubt on the flow of intensity and purity as it is complain, the water supplied loaded with foreign particles, which can not be withered out entirely, so to say the PHD authority can not wriggle out from the obligations and duties entrusted with as per the rule. So it is a fact, supply of PHD water is irregular to the public but such public acknowledgeable irregularity can”t be liable for deficiency as it is known as geographical constraint.
14. But the contention of the O.Ps are that since laying and commissioned of 160mm dia UPVC pipe line water is flowing normal to the area and to petitioner’s resident & domestic consumption. Even the old pipeline carries the water, which tested in presence of the petitioner’s family members and other residents in the locality to which no rebuttal is adduced or placed before this forum. So it”s ascertained the flow of water by the old and new pipe line continues but intensity of flow of water is abysmally low.
15. The other contention of installation of pump set to existing connection and un-authorized additional connection from the new UPVC pipe line is not supported with any evidence to that specific effect, so the allegation against the consumer is not tenable under the law. Besides it is amply established, S.E.P.H. Circle, Sambalpur, letter No.10937 dated 05.10.2010 that the supply is on restoration line. Further under the Odisha Water Works Rules and resolution of 6th February 2010 provision of Universal access to safe drinking water in (Urban local bodies) is deemed mandatory, hence on that score the PHD Deptt. is liable to deficiency.
16. Again, it is indicated in same resolution,2010,4(d)(ii),the connection shall invariably be metered but it is indisputably not implemented. The monthly charges/bills as raised is mandatory but the O.P is silent, in case non-reaching of water to the tip of consumer, the bills raised or dues is to be apportioned or not, Payment of bill in line with fixed monthly charges in disproportionate supply is unfair trade practice and a gross deficiency of service, which needs a revision as it is regressive in nature and contrary to progressive foundation of the law. As such the monthly bills, raised is against the law and unreasoned one and founded as penal one, thus O.P can’t resiled from his obligation duties and responsibilities in discharge of his public duty. Our same view is fortified by the decision in which it is observed, Government agencies cannot penalize consumers for their own lapses”- Assistant executive engineer P.H. Division & Another –Vrs- C.Subaida- 2010(34) CPR 206.
17. The consumer has deposited Rs 5,200/- and total dues remains to be paid is Rs 7,898/- the balance is Rs 2,698/- is to be paid. Considering the above all circumstances and reality of the case, we considered the amount of Rs 2,698/- be waived off entirely as the supply is pitiably low and not regular, when supply of water is not regular, then charging the bills do have to cope accordingly to the quantum of fluctuation in flow.
Hence ordered;-
ORDER.
The O.Ps are hereby directed to waive off the dues amounting to Rs 2,698/- (Two thousand six hundred ninety eight) without any demur and same be communicated to the petitioner within 30 days of this order, failing which Rs 10/- per day will accrue as penalty till the order is complied with.
(ii) The O.Ps also reserves the right to entertain the un-authorized connection under “Amnesty Scheme for regularization” envisaged in 6th February 2010 resolution on application of the petitioner.
(iii) The complainant also pay the monthly bill henceforth regularly and obtained the receipt for its own sincere certificate consolidation.
(iv) No order as to compensation and cost.
(v) Necessary steps be taken to regularize the supply and pressure.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016.
(S,Rath) (G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT.
