DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.192/07.12.2007 Decided on : 13.05.2008 Jagroop Singh S/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh, resident of village Dalel Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS The S.D.O.,Water Supply & Sanitation Department (P.J.S.) Division, Mansa, Jawaharke, District Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Complainant in person. Sh. N.K.Sharma, counsel for the opposite party. Before: Sh. Sarat Chander, Member. Mrs. Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Jagroop Singh (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the Water Supply & Sanitation Division(P.J.S.), Jawaharke, Mansa through its S.D.O., (hereinafter called as opposite Party) for issuance of a direction to the opposite party to restore him adequate and regular water supply, along with compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.3,000/- as litigation costs. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,060/- towards security vide receipt No. 201/1718 in Contd........2 : 2` : the month of July, 2007 for obtaining water supply connection, as such, the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party and is entitled to get drinking water regularly. As directed by the opposite party, the complainant had also deposited the advance payment of the bills w.e.f. 7/2007 to 12/2007. It has been alleged by the complainant that despite the advance payment made by him, not even a single drop of water was supplied by the opposite party, which amounts to deficiency in service. The personal visits to the office of the opposite party and written request dated 25.11.2007 through registered post by the complainant to release him the water supply, failed to yield any result. The underground water is not fit for health, but the complainant and his family members have to utilize underground water in the absence of the supply of potable water by the opposite party. Thus the complainant and his family members also suffered loss on account of ill health by utilizing underground water which is not fit for health. Hence this complaint. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it was contended that the water supply to the premises of the complainant is regular. On receipt of his written complaint, the water connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the OP in the presence of Sh.Joginder Singh, Sarpanch, Village Dalel Singh Wala. Upon checking, the complainant was found satisfied with the flow of water and further he gave in writing about his satisfaction. All other allegations were denied by the opposite party and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made. Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Contd........3 : 3 : counsel for the opposite party and the complainant in person and carefully gone through the record of the case. From the facts of this complaint, it is evident that the opposite party has not disputed the right of the complainant about the release of water supply . It is also not in dispute that the bill for consumption of water is being issued by the OP to the complainant in advance despite the fact that no adequate water supply is being given to him. During the course of arguments, in support of his contention, the complainant has tendered an affidavit of the Sarpanch of the village to counter the contention of the opposite party that adequate water supply to his house is being given. To rebutt, the counsel for the OP has also moved an application of the SDO concerned to the effect that the complainant was getting 20/22 pitchers of water at one time which was sufficient for his daily consumption. But, the complainant has alleged that a pit is made in a common place in front of his house about 3 feet deep and potable water is being taken from the said pit, which is further insufficient. In the affidavit, Sh.Joginder Singh, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat has further deposed that there was no pressure in the water. It was alleged by the complainant that near about 80 houses in the village were not getting adequate water supply. From the pleadings, as well as record, it has been manifestly established that inadequate and irregular potable water is being supplied to the complainant. It has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission, West Bengal, Calcutta in 1993(2)CPR 476, that where there is shortage of water supply to the premises of the complainant inspite of complainant paying the water charges, the Municipality is liable to be directed to restore the supply of water. It has been admitted by the opposite party that advance payment had been received by them from the complainant and Exhibit C-2 Contd........4 : 4 : is the copy of the receipt No.078 for Rs.360/- regarding the water consumption charges in advance w.e.f. 7/2007 to 12/2007. The water consumption bills, if issued by the opposite party to the complainant, thus requires to be withdrawn by the OP. The supply of potable water is of utmost importance for human health and, as such, we are of the firm opinion that the opposite party is responsible for providing adequate and regular drinking water to the premises of the complainant. The water supply should be equally distributed to all the residents of the village by the opposite party. It also amounts to deficiency in service towards the complainant by issuing the water consumption bills to the complainant without any adequate water supply to him. As a consequence of the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to allow this complaint with a direction to the opposite party to restore regular water supply to the premises of the complainant by equally distributing it amongst all the residents of the village with adequate pressure. It is further ordered that the opposite party will not recover any water charges from the complainant in future also for the period during which no water was supplied to the premises of the complainant, if however, any amount has been recovered by the opposite party during the above period, the same shall be refunded to the complainant. Parties shall bear their own costs. Compliance of the order shall be made within two month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order which shall be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be consigned to record. Pronounced: 13.05.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
