Punjab

StateCommission

A/1652/2014

The E-Health Point - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ram Chander Goyal - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Gupta

11 Feb 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.   1652 of 2014

                                                           

                                   Date of institution: 22.12.2014  

                             Date of Decision:    11.2.2015

 

The E-Health Point Co. Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager Abhishek Mittal c/o Kothi No. C-7, Civil Lines, Bathinda.

…..Appellant/OP No. 1

                                      Versus

1. Ram Chander Goyal son of Sh. Mattu Ram Goyal r/o Mattu Ram Street, Ward No. 12, Gurudwara Road, H. No. BVI-370, Goniana Mandi, Tehsil and District Bathinda.

…..Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Director, Health Point Service India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at Plot No. 67, Road No. 3, Jupiter Colony, Sikh Village, Secunderabad 500 009 Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Executive Office, Nagar Council, Goniana Mandi, Tehsil and District Bathinda.

…Respondents No.2&3/OP Nos. 2&3

 

First Appeal against the order dated 9.9. 2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

    Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         Sh. Deepak Gupta, Advocate

 

 

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

Misc. Application No. 2586 of 2014

                   An application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal. It was stated that the complaint was decided on 9.9.2014 and order was issued on 13.10.2014. The certified copy was misplaced, it was located in the end of November, 2014 and in that process there was delay of 40 days in filing the appeal. In view of the reasons as stated in the application and that the delay is just 40 days, therefore, the same is hereby condoned and application is hereby disposed off.

Main Case

2.                The appellant/opposite party No.1 (hereinafter referred as “OP No.1”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 9.9.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda(hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No.203          dated 18.3.2014 vide which the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant(hereinafter referred as ‘the complainant’) was partly allowed with a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/-.

3.                A complaint was filed by the complainant on the allegations that he was using the RO Water being supplied by the opposite parties. For that purpose, they had issued the RO Cards. There was agreement between Op Nos. 1 & 2 on one side and Op No. 3 on the other side under which it was agreed that Op Nos. 1 & 2 will supply the potable water at Water Works site as per WHO/BIS norms and HIS will submit an analysis report of clear water on six months basis. As per the agreement, RO water was to be supplied to the general public at the site @ 12.05 paise per litre and OP No. 1 on behalf of Op No. 2 was supplying the RO Water. However, OP Nos. 1 & 2 had failed to distribute the potable water as per WHO/BIS norms and failed to analyse the water sample for all parameters on six months basis. The opposite parties had issued monthly RO water supply cards whereas there was no condition in the agreement to issue monthly card and has not mentioned any limitation for the supply of RO water. The Ops received Rs. 80/- per month on 17.5.2013, 24.9.2013, 28.10.2013 and onwards Rs. 50/- for 15 cans from the complainant on 18.12.2014. Many times he took delivery of 13-14 cans of 20 litres capacity in the month whereas he was forced to pay excess amount for monthly card. The complainant requested the Ops to supply water for domestic use @ 12.5 paise per litre at water works point as per the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 2.5.2011 and delete the limitation period of one month as mentioned on the RO cards and do not charge excess amount beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement. He got issued a legal notice but the Ops did not pay any heed. Hence, the complaint with a direction to the Ops to pay Rs. 60,000/- as compensation.

4.                The complaint was contested by the Ops. OP Nos. 1 & 2, whofiled joint written statement stating that they had introduced a monthly usage card and taking into account the need of the user, who consume water less frequently, they introduced a 15 cans card with the same validity to facilitate their use of water in a month. Therefore, the consumer had an option to opt for 30 cans or 15 cans card facility. The complainant had procured both 15 cans card bearing No. 145 as well as 30 cans card bearing card No. 157 and he had the option to exercise either to use one or both the cards. This area was generally not considered to be a Uranium affected area. The RO plant was initiated at Goniana Mandi in the month of May, 2011 and rates were revised from Rs. 12.5/- to Rs. 1.5/- per litre, which was an increase of about 5% average per annum. There was significant increase in the energy cost and significant increase in the consumables and spares for running the water unit. The Punjab Government in their recent tender in August, 2013 invited parties to establish treated water kiosks in rural areas at the price of Rs. 90/- per month as a base price.

5.                OP No. 3 filed a separate written statement stating that as per para No. 7.1 of the agreement executed between OP No. 3 and OP Nos. 1 & 2, HIS can revise the rates periodically as required, pursuant to any hike in the energy charges, minimum wages, any associated tax etc.. The complainant was not forced to pay the excess amount at any time and the allegations are totally false and manipulated; complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. All the tests of RO Water being conducted before supply to the general public.

6.                The parties led their respective evidence in support of their contentions.

7.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written replies filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was partly allowed as stated above.

8.                In the grounds of appeal, it has been mentioned that the District Forum has failed to consider that the appellant Company is providing RO Water to the general public at the minimum price of Rs. 15 paise per litre. Even the Government of Punjab issued tenders in the year 2013 to provide RO Water in rural areas of Punjab and minimum price of water was fixed @ Rs. 15 paise per litre and Rs. 90 per month. The Ops had started their plant at Goniana in the year 2011 and thereafter the rates were revised in the year 2013 and now in the year 2014. Now the price of water is Rs. 15 paise per litre and the OP Company is working on ‘no profit no loss’. The holder of the card is to receive specific water supply for the month and the learned District Forum has failed to appreciate that point. The Forum also failed to consider that there is an other option for respondent No. 1 to take 15 cans card. The amount of penalty has been wrongly imposed upon the appellant/opposite party, hence, the order requires to be revised.

9.                Mainly the case is based upon the agreement to supply the RO Water between OP Nos. 1 & 2 on the one side and Op No. 3 on the other side and mainly the clause 5.1 has been relied upon, which reads as under:-

“5.1   HIS will initially supply/ provide safe Drinking Water to the community @ Rs. 80/- per month (Conditions apply) at water point, and if community requests to deliver the water at their door step, HIS will make efforts to organize tie-up/outsource, arrange transportation facility at additional cost. HIS can revise this rate periodically as may be required pursuant to any hike in electricity charges, minimum wages, any associated taxes etc.; in addition to this, HIS will affect an increase of 50% in rate every two years with prior information to the MC. If the HIS will charge extra rate from the rate enhancement discussed, the same would be referred to the Joint Committee for an immediate resolution of the issue so as to minimise disruption of delivery of water to the community.”

10.              Perusal of the above clause in the agreement will reveal that rates of the water can be revised from time to time after every two years. Here the problem is not of revising of rates but to the extent of supply of RO water. The plea of the opposite parties is that in case the complainant has opted a card for 30 cans per month then charges will be taken for 30 cans in a month and in case it is 15 cans cards than the charges will be taken for supply of potable water i.e. 15 cans in a month. However, the contention of respondent No. 1 is that in the agreement under reference that the opposite party will supply the RO water and will charge the money for the water supply and that there is no provision in the agreement to pay minimum charges for 15 cans water or 30 cans RO water. The counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any clause in the agreement under which the appellant is entitled to atleast charge for minimum charges for supplying the potable water.

11.              The opposite party will have to supply the RO water to the general public as per the agreement between the parties and cannot impose own condition to supply the RO water that every consumer will have to pay minimum for the card for 15 cans or 30 cans in a month, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Therefore, the complaint was rightly allowed by the learned District Forum.

12.              The counsel for the appellant has not been able to make out any point on the basis of which the appeal could be admitted, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

13.              Already as referred in para No. 10 of the grounds of appeal, a sum of Rs. 2500/- has already been paid vide cheque No. 032015 dated 27.11.14, therefore, the amount of Rs. 1250/- so deposited by the appellant with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal; with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.

14.              The arguments in this appeal were heard on 5.2.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

                                                                            (Jasbir Singh Gill)

                                                                                                    Member

 

February 11, 2015.                                                (Harcharan Singh Guram)

as                                                                                                Member