DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.

                              …………………..

Presents:-

1. Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
2. Smt. S.Rath, Member.

                   Dated. Bolangir the 16^th day of April 2018.

                   C.C.No. 49 of 2017.

Smt. Prativa Pattajoshi, wife of Dr.P.K.Das, Resident of Santipada,

Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.

                                                                     ..                        ..              Complainant.

                   -Versus-

Executive Engineer, P.H.D.Bolangir.

At/P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.

                                                                     ..                         ..              Opp.Party.

Adv. for the Complainant-None.

Adv. for the Opp.Party.   –Sri S.K.Mishra, G.P.

                                                                                 Date of filing of the case- 25.09.2017

                                                                                 Date of order                   -16.04.2018

ORDER.

Sri A.K.Purohit, President.

                 The case of the complainant is that, she is a consumer of water supply to her residential house vide consumer No.2709(L). The water supply connection from the main pipe to her house was installed by the staff of the O.P on dt.11.05.2005 and by the time of installation the said staff assured the complainant for flow of water after fitting of a lock/key in the main pipe. The complainant alleges that, the O.P neither fit the key nor there was any supply of water to her house but the O.P is raising water bill without supply. To this the complainant represented the O.P several time for disconnection of the pipe, but the O.P did not consider the same and illegally raising water bill. Hence the complaint.

2.             The O.P contested the case by filing his written version. The O.P denied all the allegations of the complainant and submitted that, the O.P on dt.14.11.2017 deputed a field staff to check the water supply connection of the complainant and found that, the water supply connection had been plugged at the ferrule point without information to the O.P. Hence  the O.P claims no deficiency of service on his part.

3.             Heard both the parties. Perused the pleadings and documentary evidence available on record. In support of her case the complainant has filed Xerox copy of water bill raised by the O.P and Xerox copy of her representation to the authority. In support of his case the O.P has not produced any evidence and simply filed a memo on dt.20.02.2018 submitting that, the water has already been supplied to the complainant after removal of defect in connection pipe.

4.               It is an admitted fact that the complainant had taken water supply connection from the O.P. It is also an admitted fact that there was no water supply to the house of the complainant due to plugged in the ferrule point. It is evident from the representation of the complainant that, from the very beginning there was no water supply to her house. It is seen from ara-5 of the written version that for the first time on dt.14.11.2017 the O.P has checked the defect in the water connection. There fore it it is believed that the O.P has not provided service on the representation of the complainant and has not taken any step for removal of defect in the said connection. The stand taken by the O.P that it was not informed to him can not be believed for the reason that, the O.P has not taken into consideration the complaint of the complainant. The O.P has also not produced any evidence either by way of affidavit of his field staff or otherwise to show that there was water supply to the house of the complainant.

5.               Under these facts and circumstances, raising bill without supply of water by the O.P amounts to unfair trade practice and hence the complainant is not liable to pay bill dt.1.4.2014 issued by the O.P. During pendency of the case on dt.20.02.2018 the O.P files a memo stating that there was water supply to the house of the complainant after unplugging the main pipe. The complainant has not raised any objection to the same. Hence it is not necessary to issue any further direction regarding supply of water.

                   Hence ordered:-

                   The O.P is directed not to demand the bill amount of Rs 9.662/-(Rupees Nine thousand six hundred sixty two) vide its water bill dt.1.4.2014 to the complainant. The O.P is further directed to pay Rs 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) to the complainant towards cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Order pronounced in open forum this the 16^th day of April 2018.

                     (S.Rath)                                                     (A.K.Purohit)

                    MEMBER.                                                PRESIDENT.