Complainant Gurbax Rai has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to continue the water supply to his house and not to demand and recover water supply bills from him after February, 2011 and continue the water supply to his house, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he applied for water supply connection before the opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.1 released his water connection bearing No.342. He is continuously continues using the water supply from the abovesaid connection till January, 2011 and continuously paid the water supply bill to the opposite party no.1 till January 2011. In the month of February, 2011, the water has stopped coming in his house due to breakage of water pipe through which the water also came in his house. He approached the opposite party no.1 many times and requested them to continue his water supply but the opposite party no.1 put the matter pending with one pretext or the other. Thereafter from 1.5.2015, the water supply department has been come to opposite parties’ no.2 and 3 and he, many times requested them to continue the water supply to his house but of no avail. Even he sent written complaint as well as online to the opposite parties no.2 and 3 bearing complaint No.14605 dated 2.2.2016, 24854, 29019 dated 07.12.2016 but they have not started the water supply to his house. Opposite parties continue to send the water supply bills to him through their officials since February, 2011. Although his water supply is stopped since February, 2011 and he and his family members are passing their days without the basic need of life i.e. water.  The act of the opposite parties of not to replace the broken water pipe coming to his house and not to continue the water supply to his house and continue to send the bill to him is illegal, null and void. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties no.2 and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complainant is getting water supply service from the opposite party free of charge since the date they took over the charge on 1.5.2015 and neither any bill was issued the complainant nor the complainant paid for the services, therefore, complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is not covered by the definition of consumer. On merits, it was submitted that on receipt of complaint from the complainant, the water supply pipe was inspected by the official of the opposite party and found that water supply line has leakage from many points. The defect could not be removed even after repairing of water supply pipe from two/three points and water supply could not be resumed. The water supply line could not be substituted with new due to lack of funds.  It was further submitted that complainant received no water supply bill after February 2011 and even opposite party never sent any bill to the complainant after taking over charge on 1.05.2015. Every house owner used to make alternative arrangements for drinking water i.e., Hand Pump or Submersible Motors etc. however official of the opposite party “House Locked” reported since long and nobody stay in the house. It was next submitted that no funds are available for replacement of water pipes at present. In fact it is the primary duty of municipal council to provide funds to replace the damaged pipe as the opposite party is the executing agency. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.    Opposite party no.1 had been served through registered AD but none had come present on its behalf despite repeated calls. It is, therefore, proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.7.2017.

5.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. 

6.       Counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Gurjinder Singh, S.D.E. Ex.OP.2,3/1 and closed the evidence.

7.       We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the C P Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We have also taken the judicial notice of the discretionary presumption that the ex-parte party/sides have ‘no-defense’ to plead and thus they prefer to stay absent, instead.

8.       We find that the complainant Gurbax Rai has been a consumer of the opposite party # 1 Committee (Service Provider) under the CP Act, by virtue of being the paid holder of the Water Connection domestic supply till January’2011 when the supply got disrupted on account of the ‘damaged’ supply line that could not be restarted afresh in spite of verbal/written complaints/reports to the OP1 committee and also to the OP2 and OP3 offices of the Water and Sewerage Board who had deposed the supply to be the duty-task of the OP1 committee service providers only and it was for them to repair/ replace the damaged water pipe etc.

9.       We further find that the OP2 and the OP3 offices have neither charged any fee nor received any security deposit for their services that the place at the disposal of the OP1 committee who do manage the paid water supply and are the statutory service-providers. The complainant has admittedly not paid any charges after the disruption of the water supply but ‘water’ being a routine necessity need be arranged/managed to the local residents by the OP1 committee. The OP1 committee preferred to be proceeded against ex-parte to plead its defense and that proves it had none in its favor and that apparently amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP1 service providers.      

10.     In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP1 committee service providers to arrange for repair/ replacement of the damaged water pipe so as to restart/ continue afresh the water supply to the complainant and other residents of the locality and shall not raise any charges of whatsoever during the intervening period of non-supply/ disruption etc. We are not inclined to allow any cost and compensation to the complainant who has himself admitted having not paid any charges etc during the disruption of water supply. The OP service providers are however censured for the present irregularity and are cautioned to be more considerate, in future, to the consumer rights of the consumers.

11.     Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.  

               (Naveen Puri)

                                                                               President   

Announced:                                                     (Jagdeep Kaur)

March, 21 2018                                                       Member

*MK*