DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.182/30.10.2008 Decided on : 20.05.2009 Sh.Rajpreet Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh, resident of Ward No.12, Bhikhi, Tehsil and District Mansa ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Nagar Panchayat, Bhikhi, through its Executive Officer, Bhikhi, Tehsil and District Mansa. 2.Sh.Lachhman Singh S/o Sh.Chet Singh, Contractor, Nagar Panchayat, Bhikhi, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.S.K.Singla, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.Manoj Kumar Singla, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1. Sh.Omkar Mittal, Advocate counsel for the OP No.2. Quorum: Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed, by Sh.Rajpreet Singh son of Sh. Joginder Singh, a resident of Bareta, against Nagar Panchayat, Bhikhi through its Executive Officer, and Sh.Lachhman Singh its Contractor, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after called the 'Act') for setting aside bill dated 10.8.2008 served for consumption of water and for payment of compensation in the sum of Rs.2000/- and costs of filing of the instant complaint. Contd........2 : 2 : 2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that, he has secured water connection bearing Account No.122 for domestic purposes in his house from Opposite Party No.1. The complainant has been making payment of amount of bills drawn upon him by the Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.2 has taken the contract of supply of water from Opposite Party No.1 and he has agreed to ensure regular supply of water within the limits of Gram Panchayat, Bhikhi under the agreement executed between the opposite parties. As such, complainant is consumer of water supply under both the opposite parties. He did not receive even a drop of water since the date of installation of the water connection in his house although he had been regularly making the complaints to the opposite parties in this connection. Even he filed an application on 9.7.2007 for disconnection of his water connection in order to save himself from making payment of bills drawn upon him for consumption of water supply. Inspite of this, the opposite parties have issued bill dated 10.8.2008 raising illegal demand for supply of water because of which the complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment. Hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, Opposite Party No.1 filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as water has been regularly supplied and he has been making payment of amount of bills drawn on him before issuance of impugned bill, as such, he is liable to pay amount mentioned therein; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party because water connection installed in the house of the complainant has not been disconnected on the basis of his application dated 9.7.2007, as there is no provision for disconnection of water connection on temporary basis; that complaint is not maintainable as opposite parties are entitled to recover the amount of bill from the complainant; that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and the same is barred by limitation. On merits, it is admitted Contd........3 : 3 : that water connection is installed in the name of the complainant by the answering opposite party, but it is submitted that amount of impugned bill is out standing towards him. It is contended that water has been regularly supplied to the house of the complainant since the date of installation of the water connection and it is reiterated that action has not been taken on the application dated 9.7.2007 filed by the complainant because there is no provision for disconnection of water connection on temporary basis. It is denied that complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to raising of demand through the impugned bill. Rest of the averments, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 4. The Opposite Party No.2 filed separate written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that he has been granted contract for supply of water to the premises of the consumers by Opposite Party No.1 with effect from 1.4.2008 whereas complainant, as per his own version, has filed application on 9.7.2007 for disconnection of water connection installed in his house, as such, he is no liable to pay any compensation and costs to him as demanded in the complaint. It is further submitted that answering opposite party has no concern with the impugned bill served by Opposite Party No.1 or action liable to be taken for disconnection of water connection. It is also denied for want of knowledge that water supplied to the house of the complainant has not been regular before answering opposite party entered into the contract of supply of water with Opposite Party No.1, but it is asserted that thereafter he has not received any complaint for irregular supply of water from any resident of the town including the complainant. Rest of the averments, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 5. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit, Exhibits C-1 and copies of documents Contd........4 : 4 : Ext.C-2 to C-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 has tendered in evidence, affidavit of Sh.Jagtar Singh, Clerk Ext.OP-1 and copy of application dated 9.7.2007 Ext.OP-2 before he closed his evidence, whereas counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Lachhman Singh Ext.OP-3 and closed evidence. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 7. At the out set, learned counsel for the complainant Sh.S.K. Singla, Advocate has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint and has submitted that opposite parties have failed to produce any proof of supply of water to the house of the complainant and has failed to take action on his application for disconnection of water connection, as such, demand raised through the impugned bill is not justified, and there is deficiency in service on the part of both the opposite parties and impugned bill raising unjust demand is liable to be set aside and they cannot escape liability to pay compensation and costs, as demanded. 8. On the other hand learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 Sh.Omkar Mittal, Advocate, has submitted that complainant is not privity to contract between the opposite parties for supply of water and he, as per his own version, has filed application for disconnection before his client secured contract for supply of water. Learned counsel argued that complainant has not produced any evidence except his own affidavit that water to his house has not been supplied on regular basis after Opposite Party No.2 assumed work of water supply, whereas averments made in the written version by Opposite Party No.2 are corroborated by his affidavit. As such, there is no deficiency in service and Opposite Party No.2 cannot be burdened with any liability because action on the application filed by the complainant was to be taken by Opposite Party No.1 for disconnection Contd........5 : 5 : of water connection and impugned bills is also issued by him. Learned counsel urged that complaint against OP No.1 deserves to be dismissed with costs. 9. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2, because contents of his affidavit Ext.OP-3 corroborate the contents of the written version, that he has taken over the contract for supply of potable water to the premises of the consumers at Bhikhi on 1.4.2008. This fact is have gone uncontroverted, as no evidence to the contrary has been brought on record by the complainant as evident from copy of agreement Ext.C-4, produced on record by the complainant himself. As per his version he has filed application for disconnection of water connection on 9.7.2007, before OP No.2 assumed task of water supply at Bhikhi to the premises of the consumers. The complainant is not party to the contract between the opposite parties for supply of water and bill dated 10.8.2008 Ext.C-2 has also been served by Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.2 is admittedly an agent of Opposite Party No.1 who is to act upon the advice of his principal. The action on application filed by the complainant, if any, was to be taken by the principal and not by the agent, who has no personal responsibility to affect the recovery of outstanding amounts sought to be recovered through the impugned bill from the complainant. The complainant has also not produced any other evidence, except his affidavit Ext.C-1, which is self serving document, to establish supply of water to his premises after OP No.2 took over the contract till date of filing of the complaint was not regular. In the light of our above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2. As such, he cannot be burdened with any liability and complaint against him is liable to fail. 10. Learned counsel for Opposite Party Party No.1, Sh.Manoj Singla, Advocate, has drawn our attention to copy of application dated Contd........6 : 6 : 9.7.2007 filed by the complainant wherein he has prayed for disconnection of his water connection installed in his premises on temporary basis. Learned counsel further argued that there is no provision for disconnection of water supply on temporary basis and complainant has failed to prove any corroborating evidence to establish that the water supply to his premises was not regular and as per his own plea, he has been regularly making payment of bills for consumption of water till the issuance of impugned bill. Learned counsel further argued that complainant was not expected to make payment of bills for consumption of water to his premises, if supply of water was irregular, as such, he cannot succeed on the basis of his own affidavit alone. Learned counsel argued that complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, who are duty bound to effect recovery of arrears from the consumers of water in the interest of public, but the complainant has filed the instant complaint with the intention to prevent him from effecting recovery thereof, as such, complaint being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed with costs. 11. As stated above, the complainant has taken a plea in his complaint itself that he has been regularly making payment of amount of bills drawn upon him by Opposite Party No.1 for supply of potable water through the water connection to his premises. In case supply of water to his premises was not regular, then he was not supposed to make payment of bills drawn upon him. He has not taken any plea that he lodged any protest at any stage except the application dated 9.7.2007 Ext.C-5, filed in the office of Opposite Party No.1 wherein he has prayed that water connection installed in his house be disconnected on temporary basis because of irregular supply of water. The complainant has neither referred to any rule nor any instruction under which water connection installed in the premises of consumer of water, may be disconnected on temporary basis. The contents of the affidavit of the complainant Contd........7 : 7 : regarding irregular supply or non supply of water to his premises are not corroborated by any other evidence. However, the opposite parties have also taken the plea that complainant has been regularly making payment of bills drawn upon him by Opposite Party No.1 for consumption of water. As such, he cannot wriggle out of the said admission made in the written version, especially when record maintained in his office regarding the amount outstanding, has been withheld. As such, adverse inference has to be drawn against Opposite Party No.1 for with holding best evidence in his possession regarding amount due towards the complainant for the period mentioned in the impugned bill. It may not be out of place to mention here that the demand has been raised in the impugned bill Ext.C-2 for the period 9.6.2007 to 31.3.2008 in the sum of Rs.1800/- and for the period 4/2008 to 9/2008 in the sum of Rs.630/- with further direction to make payment of late fee at the rate of 20 percent of the amount if not deposited within the period of 15 days after receipt of the impugned bill by the complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 has also not produced any notice which might have been served upon the complainant. As per the principle of natural justice, no person can be condemned unheard. The raising of demand, in our opinion, without providing opportunity of being heard to the consumer, amounts to deficiency in service because of which impugned notice is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside and complainant is entitled to seek adequate amount on account of compensation for mental and physical harassment and costs of filing of the instant complaint. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is dismissed, but against Opposite Party No.1 is accepted and impugned bill dated 10.8.2008 Ext.C-2 served upon the complainant by Opposite Party No.1 is set aside and he is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- on account of compensation and Rs.500/- as costs of filing the complaint. The compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Contd........8 : 8 : 13. The copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 20.05.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
