Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by the complainant Phuman Singh against opposite parties i.e. Municipal Council Kapurthala through its Executive Officer and also Executive Officer, Municipal Council Kapurthala seeking direction against them to withdraw impunged bill dated 10-9-2007 for recovery of Rs.2300/- for water and sewerage charges being illegal,null and void and also for monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 2. Brief facts in the complaint are that complainant got installed water connection in his house situated at Mohalla Panch Mandir, Kapurthala bearing No.3067 and that he has been paying the bills of water consumption and sewerage regularly . It is alleged that water supply comes from the Municipal Council Kapurthala through a public street adjoining to Amritsar Road. It is further averred that Municipal Council, Kapurthala started digging to lay pipes in the public street adjoining to the house of the complainant and that water supply to his house was disconnected on 29-11-2006. It is alleged that there is separate connection of water supply to the house of his wife. He requested the opposite parties for restoring his water supply connection and there was no question of payment of any bill/demand of water supply charges. He was, however, shocked to receive bill dated 10/9/2007 for payment of water and sewerage charges for the period from 1-6-2007 to 31-8-2007 which has been assailed as illegal, null and void as he never utilized water supply and sewerage services of the opposite parties. Opposite parties are therefore, guilty of deficiency in service on their part against which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared, controverted the allegation of the complainant and resisted his claim. This fact is not disputed that complainant has been availing of water supply coming from Municipal Council, Kapurthala through public street adjoining to Amritsar Road. This fact is further admitted that Municipal Council Kapurthala started digging to lay pipes in in the public street adjoining to the house of complainant but it has been vehemently denied that water supply to the house of complainant was disconnected on 29/11/2006 and that complainant has not been availing water/sewerage services. However, this fact is admitted that there is separate water supply connection to the house of wife of the complainant for which she has been paying separate bills. It is denied that complainant has ever brought to the notice of opposite parties for hampering of water supply services to him during pipe laying work. However, on receipt of the present complaint, bill distributor was appointed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Kapurthala to inspect the site for making report. He found that water supply was coming to the house of the complainnt and water supply line of the MC was also passing in front of the house of the complainnt. The bill distributor also reported vide report dated 10/1/2008 that nobody in the area made any complaint to him that water supply was not coming to their house. He further reported that water meter in the house of complainant is not working and bill was sent to him on average basis. In fact water supply of the complainant was never disconnected by the opposite parties an the opposite party Municipal Council is perfectly justified to recover water/sewerage charges for consumption of water and sewerage services. Almost all the residents of Mohalla have taken water connections from Amritsar road line but Phuman Singh complainant was carrying old connection. The pipe line being old and being damaged from various places, the supply of water does not reach to Phuman Singh. Municipal Council has been sending bills on average basis to complainant which he is liable to pay. Therefore, there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant Phuman Singh has produced in evidence affidavits Ex.CA and CB and documents Ex.C1/A and C2/A and Ex.C1 to C3.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavits Ex.R1 and R2.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently urged before us that opposite party Municipal Council is guilty of deficiency in service in sending the impunged bill dated 10/9/2007 for the period 1/6/2007 to 31/8/2007 without providing water and sewerage services and when the water connection was disconnected in November 2006. On the other hand it has been counter argued by learned counsel for the opposite parties that complainant was himself at fault for non payment of water and sewerage charges for the period in question . No disconnection, whatsoever, of connection of complainant was conducted.<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. This fact is admitted that complainant has been availing water and sewerage facility supplied by Municipal Council . This fact is admitted in para-3 of the written statement that Municipal Council started digging to lay pipes in the public street adjoining to the house of the complainant but it was denied that water supply was disconnected to the house of the complainant on 29/11/2006. There is also report of Mohinder Singh bill distributor dated 10/1/2008 that water supply bills have been regularly sent to Phuman Singh on average basis but he has not made the payment.. It is further explained that in this Mohalla there was no water supply line, so the connection has been given to the different persons from Amritsar Road line but on account of length of pipe being in excess, there used to be leakage in the pipes and the water used to flow to Amritsar Road on account of which Kapurthala Amritsar Road used to break due to which passerbyes faced great difficulty, so branch pipe was laid and and almost all the inhabitants have taken connection from branch line but Phuman Singh was carrying old connection . This fact is admitted that water supply pipe line being old and damaged from various places, the supply of water did not reach to Phuman Singh. Municipal Council never disconnected his water connection. Bills were sent to Phuman Singh on average basis.. Sh.Surinder Kumar Aggarwal Executive Officer, Municipal Council has affirmed all these facts in his affidavit Ex.R1. He has also denied that there was no water supply to the house of the complainant. This fact is denied that complainant had sent written request i.e. water connection was disconnected while doing pipe line work. There is one complaint Ex.C1 undated in which complainant has articulated his grievances about non supply of the water and the bill issued. This fact is admitted that there is separate water meter in the name of wife of complainnt in the same premises. During the course of proceedings, an attempt was also made by the Forum to bring about amicable settlement between the parties. Municipal Council Kapurthala made statement on 10/3/2008 that Municipal Council is ready to supply water to the complainant within a week after applying for connection from branch pipe line newly laid and expenses incurred on the misc. material shall be borne by the complainant and same was also agreed to by counsel for complainant . Later on complainant resiled. . Therefore, considering the respective pleas of both the parties and also that there have been erratic supply of water from old pipe lines linking to the house of the complainnt and equally adamant conduct of complainant in not getting the connection from newly laid pipe line like other inhabitants in the locality, this Forum is of the considered opinion that it will meet ends of justice to direct the complainant to pay half amount of impunged bill of Rs.2300/- dated 10/9/2007 Ex.C2 within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order and opposite party Municipal Council shall supply water to the complainant from branch pipe duly laid and expenses incurred on the material shall be borne by the complainant. Complainant is also entitled to Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation under the peculiar circumstances of the case which would be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. <br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : (Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 10-6-2008 Member President.