Date of Filing 23.08.2023

                                                                                                       Date of Disposal: 16.11.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                        …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., B.L,                                                                              ……MEMBER-I

CC.No.76/2023

THIS THURSDAY, THE 16^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

Mr.R.Suresh,

S/o.Ramalingam,

No.336, Trunk Road,

Karaiyanchavadi,

Poonamallee, Chennai 600 056.                                                            ......Complainant.

                                                                              //Vs//

The Commissioner,

Poonamallee Municipality Office,

Poonamallee, Chennai 600 056.                                                        .…..Opposite Party.

Counsel for the complainant                                                                 : Party in Person.

Counsel for the opposite party                                                             : exparte.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 10.11.2023 in the presence of complainant who appeared in person and opposite party was set exparte for non-appearance and for non-filing of written version and upon perusing the documents and evidences of complainant’s side this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT.Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant/Party in Person u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party with respect to the service connection given for water supply along with a prayer claiming a compensation of Rs.9,50,000/-along with cost of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. The case of the complainant was that he along with his father Mr.Ramalingam was enjoying water supply paying the necessary water charges & tax vide Drinking Water connection No.010/855 and New No.010/008/00032.  On 01.06.2022 without any prior notice the water connection was stopped by the opposite party.  On approaching several times it was assured by the opposite party that the connection would be restored.  Though water supply was provided in the streets of complainant’s house no connection was given to the complainant in spite of complaints dated 07.03.2023 and 17.03.2023 to the Municipality Commissioner.  The complainant was devoid of water supply from 01.06.2023 to 02.04.2023.  On 03.08.2023 water supply was restored.  However, the connection was given nearby the front gate making it impossible for the front gate to be opened.  After several representations through Whatsapp and in person proper water connection was installed.  Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for depriving the complainant without water for nearly 425days claiming a compensation of Rs.9,50,000/-along with cost of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

3. Though notice was received by the opposite party he did not appear and file any written version and hence he was called absent and set exparte on 26.10.2023 for non-appearance and for non-filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statute.

4. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A9were submitted

Points for consideration:-

1. Whether the complaint as filed is maintainable before this Commission?
2. Whether the alleged deficiency in service against the opposite party has been successfully proved by the complainant and if so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;

1. Payment of water charges by the father of the complainant dated21.02.2020 was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Complaint given by the complainant to the Commissioner, Poonamallee Municipality Office dated 07.03.2023 & 17.03.2023 were marked as Ex.A2 & Ex.A3;
3. photographs were marked as Ex.A4 &Ex.A5;
4. Whatsapp complainss were marked as Ex.A6;
5. The proof of complainant becoming the owner of the property was marked as Ex.A7;
6. Death Certificate of the complainant’s father marked as Ex.A8;
7. Legal heir Certificate marked as Ex.A9;

5. As the present complaint was filed against the Commissioner, Poonamallee Municipality this Commission Suomoto decided to discuss the maintainability of complaint.  Vide judgment dated 02.05.1997 in Nagrik Parishad Pauri Garhwal vs. Garhwal Jal Sansthan And Others the Supreme Court Of India had held that

We do not intend to hedge, in any manner, the jurisdiction of the Commission but suffice to mention that the word “consumer” is by itself defined in Section 2(4) of the U.P Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 (43 of 1975) to mean any person getting the benefit of any water supply or sewerage service from the local body Jal Sansthan or the Nigam as the case may be. Here the Nagrik Parishad, the representative body of the consumers have alleged lack of service and have placed on record the water bills which some of them have been receiving for payment allegedly on account of the water supply. It is otherwise not denied that the pipeline has been laid and water meters have been put at the consumers' residences. The dispute here was for failure of services because of lack of water supply. It was nowhere in dispute that water tax was being charged from the consumers but that was a different liability. It is the bills received and paid by the consumers which were reflective of the obligation of the Jal Sansthan to be supplying water to the consumers. It is for these reasons we have thought it proper to send the matter back for a fresh decision, since it had been assumed that water tax alone was being charged from the consumers.

Based on the above decision we have no hesitation to hold that on basis of payment of water charges by the complainant, the complaint was very well maintainable before this Commission as the matter does not pertains to water tax.  Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2:-

6. The Party in person/complainant appeared and argued that he along his Late father Mr.Ramalingam was enjoying water supply paying the necessary water charges but the water supply was disconnected by the opposite party.

 7.  The payment of water charges by the father of the complainant was amply proved by Ex.A1.  The complaint given by the complainant to the Commissioner dated 07.03.2023 and 17.03.2023 was also filed as Ex.A2 & Ex.A3.  It is also seen that vide Ex.A4 the water connection was provided in the street of the complainant’s house and Ex.A5 wherein we could see that the Hand Pipe was fixed exactly near the gate making the gate unable to be opened.  The Whatsapp complaint was also filed as Ex.A6.  The proof for complainant becoming the owner of the property after his father’s death was also filed.

8. On perusal of the above documents and pleadings we could see that water supply was disconnected without any prior notice to the complainant.  Further Ex.A5 shows the careless and negligent act of the opposite party in erecting the water tap/Hand pipe connection near the front compound gate making the complainant unable to utilize both the water tap connection and also making difficult for him to open the compound front gate. After several representations the water tap connection was appropriately erected/fixed and he has been utilizing the same.  However, the fact remains that the complainant was put to mental agony by depriving his legitimate right to use water from the water supply connection provided by the Corporation/Opposite party inspite of paying the necessary water charges which aspect could not be ignored slightly by this Commission.  Thus we hold that the act of the opposite party amounted to clear negligence and deficiency in service.  As now the water supply has been restored we feel it is appropriate to order a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due to the act of opposite party along with cost of Rs.5,000/-.  Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing them

a) To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;

b) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 16^th day of November 2023.

    -Sd-                                                                                                                      -Sd-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                         PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

     -Sd-                                                                                                                   -Sd-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                       PRESIDENT