BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.812 of  13

Date of Institution: 02-12-2013

Date of Decision: 08-06-2015

Manohar Singh son of Jodh Singh, resident of 384-A, Green Avenue, Amritsar.  

Complainant

Versus

Municipal Corporation, Amritsar through its Commissioner having office at Town Hall, Amritsar. 

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Deepinder Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party: Sh. U.K.Gaind, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Manohar Singh  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he has taken  water supply connection having I.D.No.52662, account No.6891 from Opposite Party  for his domestic use. Complainant alleges that the Opposite Party  while laying road in front of the house of the complainant inadvertently disconnected water connection of the complainant in the month of January 2012 and the water supply connection  has been stopped in the house of the complainant. Since then the complainant is making several requests to Opposite Party to restore the water supply connection  of the complainant, but to no effect. The Opposite Party replied to complainant vide their letter dated 15.10.2013 which is false and frivolous reply and does not intend to restore water supply connection  of the complainant.     Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to refund the amount paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party  towards water supply since the year 2012 alongwith interest, to restore the aforesaid water supply connection of the complainant immediately.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the water supply connection in dispute was not  disconnected by the Opposite Party while laying the alleged road in front of the house of the complainant as alleged. When the connection in dispute was never disconnected by the Opposite Party, the question of its restoration by the Opposite Party does not arise in the matter.    While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Tilak Raj, Assistant Commissioner Ex.OP1, copy of computerized ledger Ex.OP2  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant had  water supply connection having I.D.No.52662, account No.6891 from Opposite Party  for his domestic use at his residence. Complainant alleges that the Opposite Party  while laying road in front of the house of the complainant inadvertently disconnected water connection of the complainant in the month of January 2012, as a result of which water supply connection  to the house of the complainant has been stopped. The complainant made so many  requests to the  complainant to   restore the water supply connection  of the complainant, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The Opposite Party replied to complainant vide  letter dated 15.10.2013 Ex.C5  that they are not going to restore the water supply connection  of the complainant as it was an old service line and the complainant could get the same repaired at his own level or from the Opposite Party by depositing the requisite fee for the restoration of the supply line and the complainant got the supply line restored at his own level by spending huge amount. In this regard, the complainant produced bills Ex.C6, Ex.C7 and Ex.C8. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that by the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, the  complainant has been harassed mentally as well as financially which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the water supply connection of the complainant was never disconnected by the Opposite Party while laying the alleged road in front of the house of the complainant as alleged. When the  connection in dispute was never disconnected by the Opposite Party, the question of its restoration by the Opposite Party does not arise. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the allegation of the complainant is that he has water supply connection  vide account No.6891 for his domestic use at his residence and the said water supply connection is stopped because  the Opposite Party  while laying road in front of the house of the complainant inadvertently disconnected water connection of the complainant, but the complainant could not produce any evidence that Opposite Party  while  laying road in front of the house of the complainant inadvertently disconnected water connection of the complainant and that the complainant had to spend huge amount for the restoration of the water supply connection. The complainant also could not produce any mechanic/ plumber to prove that he did the restoration work of water supply connection to the house of the complainant. Further, the complainant could not produce any evidence that the water supply system was damaged by the Opposite Party while laying the road in front of the house of the complainant nor the complainant could produce any bill of water supply to the effect he has been making the payment of the water supply during the period the water supply to the house of the complainant allegedly  remained  disconnected. The complainant has produced only one bill in this regard Ex.C2, which pertained to the period from March 2013 to June 2013, whereas the complainant has alleged that his water supply connection  was disconnected by the Opposite Party inadvertently in January 2012. So, from the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove on record the allegation levelled by him against the Opposite Party in the complaint. As such, the complainant has failed to point out any deficiency of service     on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
9. Consequently, we hold that the  complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 08-06-2015.                                          (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member