Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Heard counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been filed by the Water Works Engineer, Sangli Miraj Kupwad City Corporation, Divisional office, Miraj against the judgment passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli, in Consumer Complaint No. 613 of 2007 decided on 19/03/2008. By the said judgment, forum below allowed the complaint and directed appellant Corporation to pay to the complainant sum of `1,000/- towards cost of the complaint. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the O.P.-Corporation has filed this appeal.
There was delay in filing this appeal. Delay is condoned. We have directed to issue notice after admission to the respondent. The same was sent by speed post. The respondent received this notice, still she is absent. Hence appeal is decided ex-parte.
The complainant’s grievance was that, she had taken water connection from Corporation by no. 787. She lodged the complaint against the Corporation in June-July 2004 and December 2004- January 2005. The main grievance of the complainant is water supply is not made with due pressure and consumption of water is not mentioned in the bills. By filing the complaint in forum below, complainant made demand to provide water with due pressure and it should be regular supply and also claimed refund of `1,887/- from the Corporation alleging that in the month of December 07 the water rate had been increased and also requested to get `2,000/- towards mental agony and `1,500/- towards cost.
O.P.-Corporation filed written statement and contested the complaint. According to O.P. Corporation, complainant is not a consumer. Even if the complainant may not have consumed water, but the bills of water is given as per rules. Corporation has also pleaded that the arrears and interest thereon are reflected on next bill. Her house is on second floor and therefore she is not getting water supply with due pressure. The Corporation pleaded that if she wants to get supply of water with due pressure, she has to install electric pump and she should, by using pump collect the water in her house on second floor. The O.P. Corporation pleaded that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.
Upon hearing advocates for the parties and perusal of documents, forum below hold that the complainant is a consumer of the Corporation and there is some deficiency on the part of O.P.-Corporation and simply directed Corporation to pay `1,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the complaint and rejected remaining grievances made out allegedly by the complainant.
We are finding that the forum below adopted shortcut method. They have made sweeping statement which is not proper. The forum below allowed the complaint paltry simply directing corporation to pay `1,000/- to the respondent.
The appellant submitted that the bills given to the complainant are on the basis of average consumption and the complainant had not paid the previous bills and therefore the amount of that bill was appearing to be on higher side. It is argued that the Corporation is levying water tax. Collection of water tax is the statutory duty of the Corporation. Even if, there is reduced supply of water still Corporation can recover water tax. Viewed from this angle imposition of cost of `1,000/- is not just and proper. There is no deficiency on the part of Corporation and they rightly issued the bills. In the circumstances, we are finding that there is merit in the appeal and same will have to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sangli in consumer complaint No.613/2007. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 19/03/2008 is quashed and set aside. The consumer complaint No.613/2007 stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Amount deposited by the appellant while preferring this appeal be refunded back to the appellant.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 20 December 2010
