Punjab

StateCommission

FA/658/2013

Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Department and others - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tara Singh and others - Opp.Party(s)

Vivek Goel

16 Feb 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB   DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

 

  First Appeal No.658 of 2013

 

                                                        

              Date of institution  :    17.06.2013  

Date of decision     :    16.02.2015

 

1.      Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Department, (Water               Supply and Sanitation) Kotkapura, through its Sub Divisional             Engineer.

2.      Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Works Department, (Water               Supply and Sanitation) Jaitu, through its Sub Divisional                       Engineer.

3.      Executive Engineer, Water Supply and Sanitation Department,        Faridkot, through its Executive Engineer.

                                      …….Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

 

Versus

1. Tara Singh s/o Bachittar Singh account no. ALH 255

2. Boota Singh s/o Mohinder Singh account no. ALH 84

3. Jaswinder Kaur d/o Dalip Singh account no. ALH 60

4. Iqbal Singh s/o Budh Singh account no. ALH 56

5. Simerjit Singh s/o Sampuran Singh account no. ALH 62

6. Jaspal Singh s/o Sham Singh account no. ALH 208

7. Ramesh Chander s/o Charan Dass account no. ALH 90

8. Ranjit Singh s/o Inder Singh account no. ALH 01

9. Charanjit Singh s/o Lachman Singh account no. ALH 45

   10.    Balwinder Singh s/o Ajit Singh account no. M43/JS02/020200U

   11.    Gurbachan Singh s/o Rattan Singh account no. ALH 64

   12.    Mit Singh s/o Rattan Singh account no. ALH 28

   13.    Gurnam Singh s/o Hardev Singh account no. ALH          M43/JA02/020200U

   14.    Karam Singh s/o Jinder Singh account no. ALH 146

   15.    Jarnail Singh s/o Bachittar Singh account no. ALH 51

   16.    Sukhmander Singh s/o Karnail Singh account no. ALH 170     All residents of village Aulakh, District Faridkot.

             (Respondents No.3,4,8,11 & 12 have been struck off, vide      order dated 25.04.2014)

                                                          …Respondents/Complainants 

First Appeal against the order dated 12.03.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot.

Quorum:- 

 

 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.

                        Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:-

 

 

          For the appellants         : Shri Vivek Goel, Advocate.

          For the respondents      : Ex parte.

 

 

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,  PRESIDENT :

 

                    This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ opposite parties against the order dated 12.03.2013  passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (in short, “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and opposite party No.2 was directed to withdraw the wrongly issued bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-16 and to ensure properly laying out of the infrastructure and supply of pure portable drinking water to the complainants within two months of the receipt of the copy of the order.

2.  The complainants alleged, in their complaint, that they are residents of village Aulakh and the water supply system of that village was earlier under opposite party No.1, but about two years before the filing of the complaint, the same was brought under opposite party No.2 and again the same has been brought under opposite party No.1 one and a half months before the filing of the complaint. The same is not working properly from the last about two years and their houses are not getting the water supply and the other houses in the village are getting that water supply for a very short period. A new underground pipeline was laid about two years back in some parts of the village, after spending lacs of rupees by the opposite parties, but that pipe was never connected with the main water supply pipe and is lying useless and has been damaged at many places. No employee of these opposite parties is posted at the water works for the last about two years and there is no body to purify the water before supplying the same to them and other residents of the village. Despite that, the opposite parties are issuing the bills to them and other residents of the village, though they are not entitled to do so for want of water supply. The small quantity of water, which is being supplied by them, is not drinkable and is harmful for human consumption; as the same is supplied without proper purification. The old water storage tank/reservoir has been totally damaged and the new water tank, constructed about two years back, was also damaged on account of the use of sub-standard material. They and the other residents of the village, including the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, submitted application dated 07.05.2012 to opposite party No.3, explaining in detail the plight of the water works and only thereafter, one pump operator has been posted at those water works, though as per the rules, there are four such posts in the village. As a result of the said act of the opposite parties, they and other residents of the village have faced inconvenience, harassment and suffered financial loss; for which they are entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. They prayed for the issuance of following directions to the opposite parties:-

 

 

i)        to withdraw the illegal bills issued without supplying water from         the last one year;

ii)       to supply pure drinking water eight hours a day;

iii)      to properly maintain/repair or re-construct the water storage    tanks;

iv)      to pay Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation and litigation expenses;       and

v)      to fill up the sanctioned posts of the employees at water works.

 

3.  The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed joint written reply before the District Forum. In the written reply, they admitted that there is a water supply scheme in village Aulakh and the same used to be maintained by them. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, they pleaded that this water supply scheme is a “Single Village Water Scheme” and as per notification dated 13.01.2004, the same was handed over to the Village Panchayat on 27.02.2004, with complete charge of water supply and maintenance of all the concerned equipment. Thereafter, it is the duty of the Panchayat to collect the water supply bills for maintenance and to supply water to the villagers, after making a committee; of which Sarpanch is to be the Chairman. It is the concerned Panchyat which is not running this water supply scheme properly. In view of the demand of the water supply of the villagers and on the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, the concerned office is making an endeavour and has already directed the Panchyat to fulfill its duties and to ensure eight hours supply of 70 litres of water per person. As per the report of the Panchayat, the same is being continuously supplied by it. Thereafter, no such complaint was received by the concerned office. The Department has made full-fledged efforts for the supply of pure water to the villagers and is making timely inquiries and checks of the performance of the duty by the Village Panchayat for the proper supply of the water. The complainants do not come within the purview of the definition of the “consumer” and the complaint filed by them is not maintainable. They have no cause of action to file this complaint against them, as there is no such deficiency in service on their part. The complaint involves complicated question of law and facts, which require whole set of evidence and the District Forum is unable to decide the same summarily. The complaint has been filed by the complainants with a mala fide intention to harass them. They prayed for the dismissal thereof.
4.         Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties, as the complainants did not appear before the Commission in spite of their service and were proceeded against exparte. We have also carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. By referring to the notification dated 13.01.2004 Annexure A-1, notification dated 30.09.2003 and the directions annexed with the appeal, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the complaint filed by the complainants was not maintainable against the opposite parties. The drinking water supply scheme already stands transferred to the Gram Panchayat. By virtue of the said notification and the scheme, it was taken over by the Gram Panchayat. After the issuance of the notifications, the constitution of the “Village Water and Sanitation Committee” and the transfer of the water supply to the Gram Panchayat, only the Gram Panchayat is responsible for the maintenance of those water works and to supply the portable water to the villagers and the opposite parties have nothing to do with the same. The complaint, if any, was maintainable only against the Gram Panchayat and the District Forum committed an illegality, while issuing the directions to the opposite parties; who at the time of filing of the complaint, had nothing to do with the water works or with the supply of the water to the villagers. That itself is a ground for allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the District Forum.
7. A perusal of the records of the District Forum shows that the complainants, during the pendency of the complaint, filed an application for impleading the Gram Panchayat of village through its Sarpanch, as opposite party No.5. That application is dated 13.09.2012 and is at Page-115 of the record. The same does not find mention in any of the zimni orders passed by the District Forum. Both the sides submitted written arguments before the District Forum and the opposite parties, in those written arguments, took up the specific plea that the complainants have not impleaded the Gram Panchayat of the village and the committee, which was constituted for the water supply and, as such, the complaint was to be dismissed on that ground. In spite of that, the District Forum never took up that point, while deciding the complaint on merits. Before deciding the complaint, it was required to dispose of the said application. The decision of that application in favour of the complainant would have changed the fate of the case. The order passed by the District Forum, without first deciding that application for impleading the Gram Panchayat as a party, cannot be sustained.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is remanded back to the District Forum to decide the same afresh, after deciding the application filed by the complainants for impleading the Gram Panchayat as opposite party No.5.
9. Parties are directed to appear before it on 10.04.2015. Records of the District Forum be returned immediately.
10.           The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

1.  

                                                           (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                          PRESIDENT  

                                                            

    

    

                                                           

                                                         (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)

   February 16, 2015                                       MEMBER

   (Gurmeet S)