DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/315

Date of Institution : 25.04.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 18.07.2022

Mr. Harjinder Singh Chahal s/o Sh. Bela Singh R/o H. No. C-2353, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. 

  …Complainant

Versus

1. Municipal Corporation Having its office at Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Commissioner. 

2. The XEN (O&M Cell), Water Sewerage Supply Authority, Municipal Corporation, Having its office at Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.

3. Amritsar Improvement Trust Having its Office at Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through its Executive Officer.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint U/S 12 and 13 of The Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date

Present: Sh. Deepinder Singh Adv counsel for the complainant.

Sh. UK Gaind Adv counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2.

Sh. Rajesh Bhatia Adv counsel for opposite party No. 3. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against Municipal Corporation, Amritsar and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is account holder of water and sewerage supply bearing No. 13561 having ID No. 90035 issued by the opposite parties in the name of his mother in law and the complainant is using the said connection for his personal use and paying all bills regularly. The complainant is a consumer being beneficiary as provided under the Act. The complainant is getting the water supply from more than last six months in highly impurified and dangerous for human consumption from the opposite parties. The said water supply is in dirty yellow colour and with physical impurities and carries very foul smell. The matter has time and again brought to the knowledge of the opposite parties but to no avail. The opposite parties are continuously charging for the said dirty and unfit water for human consumption. The complainant being retired IAS Officer personally took up the matter with the opposite parties including personal visits to the opposite party No. 1 but no corrective measures are being done and put the ball in the court of opposite party No. 3 that they are responsible for the water and sewerage supply in the area of residence of the complainant. The act of the opposite parties in supplying the dirty and unfit watter to the complainant is amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to resume the water supply with the proper and clean water fit for human consumption to the complainant.      

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation.

3) To pay cost of legal expenses.

4) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable. Further, the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and only remedy available to the complainant is to file Civil Suit as there are complicated and disputes questions involved in the present case. Further, the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands. No cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint and he got no locus standi to file this complaint. The disputes connection is in the name of one Jasbir Kaur wife of Hardev Singh as per official record as such the complainant has got no right qua the connection in dispute.

4. On merits, it is admitted that the disputed connection is in the name of one Jasbir Kaur who is registered consumer qua the connection in dispute. The complainant is neither a consumer nor beneficiary of the connection in dispute. Rest of the submissions made in the complaint are denied by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. However, it is submitted that previously there was complaint with regard to quality of water in the area and immediate action was taken by the answering opposite party and complaint of the area was solved and residents of area have give in writing in this regard in the shape of Majornama that they are getting good quality of water being provided by Municipal Authorities and further that they are satisfied with services of concerned department. So there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the answering opposite parties and lastly they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with special costs. 

5. The opposite party No. 3 also filed reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act. The water supply and sewerage connections of complainant is running and maintained by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and answering opposite party have no concern regarding the said matter. Complainant submit a bill of water supply and sewerage alongwith his complaint which clearly shows that no bill or receipt of any type regarding the water and sewerage supply is issued by the answering opposite party No. 3.

6. On merits, the opposite party No. 3 denied all the submissions of the complaint and lastly prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.  

7. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence. 

8. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Manjit Singh SDO Ex.OP-1/A, copy of majornama Ex.OP-1/1, copy of meter reading Ex.OP-1/2 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 3 also tendered in evidence affidavit of Jeevan Bansal Executive Officer Ex.OP-3/1 and closed the evidence.  

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file carefully.

10. It is admitted fact between the parties that the connection of water supply and sewerage is in the name of Jasbir Kaur wife of Hardev Singh. As per version of the complainant Jasbir Kaur is his mother in law and he is using the said connection and paying the bills and beneficiary of the said connection, so in our view the complainant is consumer of the opposite parties. 

11. The main grievance of the complainant in the present complaint is that he is getting the water supply from the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 but from the last six months from the date of filing of present complaint the opposite parties supplied the water which is highly impurified and dangerous for human consumption. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the water supply is in dirty yellow colour and with physical impurities which carries foul smell. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the matter was time and again brought to the knowledge of the opposite parties but to no effect. 

12. On the other hand opposite parties denied that they supplied impurified and dangerous for human consumption water to the complainant or in the area of the complainant. They further submitted that previously there was complaint with regard to quality of water in the area which was already solved and now they are getting good quality of water being provided by Municipal Authorities. To prove this fact the opposite parties filed copy of majornama Ex.OP-1/1 in which some residents of same area mentioned that “we residents of Ranjit Avenue complained regarding bad quality of water supplied by Municipal Authorities few days back. In this regard appropriate services was given by the concerned JE and other people of the department. Now the problem has been solved and good quality of provided. We are satisfied with the services from the concerned department.” In our view, from this document it is proved on the file that the opposite parties already solved the problem of supply of bad quality of water to the residents of the area including the complainant. Further, the complainant has not filed any evidence regarding the supply of bad quality water to him. 

13. Further, in our view the opposite parties are performing their statutory duties and sovereign functions and there is no element of hiring of service as defined in Consumer Protection Act, therefore the complainant not falls in the definition of consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. The similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in appeal No. 308 of 2020 decided on 17.5.2021. 

14. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and hear the present complaint, hence the same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        18th Day of July 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member