Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 7th day of March, 2005
C.D.No. 148/2003
The Krishna Nagar area
Residents Welfare Association,
Rep by its Secretary,
B.Siva Rami Reddy,
Reg No. 361/90, H.No. 79-100,
Krishna Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri P.Siva Sudarshan. Advocate
-Vs-
The Commissioner,
Kurnool Municipal Corporation,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party represented by his counsel
Sri D.Yella Reddy. Advocate
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 11& 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party not to collect the monthly tap fee from the residents of Krishna Nagar in future as well as the arrears of such fees until protected drinking water is regularly supplied to the colony, cost of the complaint and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is the resident of Krishna Nagar and filed this complaint on behalf of Krishna Nagar Area Residents Welfare Association, which is within the limits of Kurnool Municipal Corporation. There are many residential houses in Krishna Nagar which was earlier under Kallur Gram Pranchayat up to April 2001 and the said Gram Panchayath collected Rs.10/- as tap fee and did not supply protected drinking water. After April, 2001 Kallur Gram Panchayat was merged with Kurnool Municipal Corporation and it started collecting Rs.10,000/- from each house for giving tap connection. After the said merge the opposite party started issuing bill for tap fee @ Rs.60/- per month and not supplying protected drinking water to Krishna Nagar area. Even though the opposite party collected water tax and donations at excessive rates the water that is supplied to Krishna Nagar Area is not protected water, which is pumped directly from Tungabhadra River without filtration and chlorination. The residents of Krishna Nagar are purchasing water at the rate of Rs.2 per pot and are facing financial loss.
3. The complainant further submits that due to the supply of unprotected drinking water by opposite party the residents of the said area are suffering from diarrhea and other epidemic diseases. On request of complainant, the Regional Laboratory, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool on1.7.2003 collected water samples from Krishna Nagar area for testing and gave its report stating the water is without filtration and chlorination and is not useful for drinking purpose. Therefore, the complainant’s association made several representations to opposite party to supply protected dinking water regularly to the residents of Krishna Nagar Area. But so far the opposite party has not taken any steps, therefore collecting tap fee from the residents is illegal and untenable. Hence, the complainant is constrained to resort to the Forum seeking the reliefs made in the complaint.
4. The complainant in support of their case relied on the following documents Viz (1) Report of Chemical Examination of water dt 13.7.2003 given by Civil Surgeon Bacteriologist Regional Laboratory, Kurnool (2) Bacteriologist Examination of water sample dt 4.7.2003 (3) Bye laws and Regional Certificate of Association (Original) (4) water receipt No. 849 dt 2.11.2000 for Rs.480/- for the months of 96-97, 97-98, 98-99, 99-2000, 1.4.99 to 31.2.2000 for Rs.480/- issued by Gram Panchayat Kallur (5) water tax receipt No. 020020896 dt 18.8.2004 for Rs.60/- per month (6) Representation dt 07/2003 submitted by complainant to opposite party (7) Representation dt 08.4.2003 submitted by complainant to District Collector, Kurnool (8) Resolution copy dt 1.9.2003 ( in minutes book ) and (9) Members meeting dt 22.9.2002 (members present) in minutes book, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complaint in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.9 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant also relied on the three third party sworn affidavits of B. Rama Krishna Reddy, M. Venkata Subbamma and N. Sreedhar Murthy and two third parties suitablely replied to the questions caused by opposite party.
5. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filing denial written version and questioning the maintainability of the complainant’s case either in Law or on facts.
6. The written version of opposite party alleges firstly, the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint and not authorized to sign the complaint, secondly the complainant is not a consumer to come within the purview of C.P. Act, thirdly, water charges are collected as per bye laws of water supply and the complainants Association is not paying Water Tax, fourthly drinking water is supplied as per W.H.O standards and, fifthly the complainant has not issued any statutory notice as contemplated under section 685 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act before filling this complaint.
7. It further submits that Kallur Wards do not have any filtration plants separately and the process of filtration is being carried naturally, as four in filtration wells are located in Thungabhadra river as per WHO Standards and water is directly pumped from infiltration wells to the over head tanks that are available in Kallur Gram Panchayat and the water from the over head tanks are supplied to the residents of Kallur Gram Panchayat including Krishna Nagar Area.
8. It further submits that in Kurnool Town raw water from Thungabhadra river is directly pumped to the water beds, where water is filtered through sand and after chlorination water is supplied to the residents of Kurnool Town through over head water tanks. After the Kallur Gram Panchayat merged with Kurnool Municipal Corporation, the opposite party is collecting Rs.60 per month as water tax as water is supplied by the opposite party to the resident of Kallur Gram Panchayat and Kurnool Town.
9. It further submits that on 30.9.2003 the Assistant Engineer of opposite party has drawn samples from Public Taps situated near door No.s 79/77, 80/8 and 80/93 of Krishna Nagar and send it for testing to Regional Laboratory, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool and the said Laboratory gave report that the “ Bacteriological quantity is satisfactory” so the water supplied by opposite party is fit for drinking purpose.
10. It lastly submits that as the opposite party is supplying water as per W.HO standards to the residents of Krishna Nagar Area, there is no deficiency of service and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
11. In substantiation of its case the opposite party relied on the following documents Viz (1) Bacteriological Examination of water samples dt 3.10.2003 from public tap near door No. 80/8 Krishna Nagar (2) Bacteriological Examination of water samples dt 3.10.2003 from public tap near door No. 80/93 Krishna Nagar and (3) Bacteriological examination water sample dt 3.10.2003 from public tap near door No. 79/77, Krishna Nagar, besides to the sworn affidavit in reiteration of its written version as defence and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.3 for its appreciation in this case and caused questions to the complainant and two third parties.
12. Hence the point for consideration is to whether the complainant has made out their case alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite party:-
13. The replies of the 3rd parties to the interrogatories caused by the opposite party being not in a form of the sworn affidavit as contemplated under Order XI, Rule 8&9 of CPC and Appendix-C Form No.3 they are not remaining worthy of consideration.
14. The main allegation of the complaint is that they were paying Rs.10/- as water charges before to the merge of Kallur Gram Panchayat with Kurnool Municipal Corporation and the water supplied was un protected drinking water. After the said merge the Kurnool Municipal Corporation is charging Rs.60/- as water charges and suppling un protected drinking water, where as the same charge is paid by residents of Kurnool Town but the water supplied to them is protected drinking water. The complainant seeks for the supply protected drinking water for the said payment of water charges of Rs.60/-. But as against to it the written version of opposite party in their avernemnt alleges firstly, the complainant has no locus standi, but the complainant brought on record Ex A.3 bye Laws and Certificate of Registration of Societies, which envisages the complainant’s Association is Registered under societies Act XXI of 1860 on 19.11.1990, the present case is filed by the Secretary of the said Association, hence the said allegation is rejected. Secondly, the complainant is not a consumer, under C.P.Act, the complainant is paying water charges for supply of water and the opposite party accepting the payment of water charges for supply of water, therefore the complainant for payment of water charges is a consumer. Thirdly, water charges are collected as per Bye Laws, but no bye Laws are brought on record to substantiate their plea. Fourthly, drinking water is supplied as per W.H.O Standards, but no W.H.O standards are filed to support their plea and fifthly no statutory notice is issued as contemplated under section 685 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act before filling this case but no such Act is filed for perusal by this Forum. In the absence of any cogent substance in support of the supra stated allegations of the opposite party, the said allegations are rejected.
15 The opposite party further alleged that water to Kallur Gram Panchayat is supplied directly to the over head tanks from four in built filtration wells, which doesn’t require any further filtration but did not place any substantiating material in support of their allegation. The opposite party taking several pleas in its written version but did not made any endeavor to substantiate them by placing any supporting and cogent evidence.
16. The Ex A.1 is the report of Chemical Examination of water dt 13.7.2003, it envisages the tap water sample collected at S. Nagendra Rao, residence, D.No. 79/703, Krishna Nagar on 1.7.2003 send by B. Krishna Murthy, President, Krishna Nagar Area Welfare Association, Kurnool and the said sample was received by Regional Laboratory, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool on 1.7.2003. The remarks after the said examination are that the samples turbidity more than 5 NTU may give rise to bacterial growth in water. As the Chemical Characteristic are within normal limits, the water may be filtered and chlorinated to make it fit for drinking purpose. In the absence of any cogent material placed by the opposite party rebutting the said Ex A.1 and as in the Ex A.1, it is mentioned that the water may give rise bacterial growth, may be filtered and chlorinated to made it fit for drinking purpose, subsequent to that the said statement of opposite party on this aspect not only remaining highly in consistence but also there by untrust worthy and consisting of any bonafides of the opposite party in that regard. Therefore, what follows is that the water supplied to Krishna Nagar Area is not good water and hence there appears every bonafides of the complainant in his hesitation in the said grievance and there by deficiency of service on the side of the opposite party in that regard.
17. The Ex A.2 is the Bacteriological Examination of water samples by Regional Laboratory, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool, it envisages the receipt of water samples on 1.7.2003 from the President, Krishna Nagar Residential Welfare Association, Kurnool collected on 1.7.2003 at tap of Aditaya Nagar, water tank, the report is forwarded on 4.7.2003 and remarks endorsed on the said report as Bacteriological Quality unsatisfactory. The opposite party rebutted the Ex A.2 brough on record Ex B.1, B.2&B.3 dt 3.10.2003, they are Bacteriological Examination of water samples by Regional Laboratory, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool, they envisage the receipt of water samples on 30.9.2003 from K.M.C on 30.9.2003, collected on 30.9.2003 at Public Tap, Krishna Nagar, Door No. 80/8 and the report was forwarded on 2.10.2003. The remarks mentioned on these reports as Bacteriological Quality satisfactory. The Ex A.2 says Bacteriological Quality is unsatisfactory and the water sample collected from a tap of a residential house and the Ex B.1, B.2& B.3 says Bacteriological Quality is satisfactory and the water sample is colleted from a public tap.
18. The Ex A.4 is the payment receipt No. 849 for Rs.480/- issued by Kallur Gram Panchayat. Ex A.5 is receipt No. 020020896 dt 18.8.2004 for Rs. 60/- per month issued by opposite party, the Ex A.6 is the representation dt 7/2003 submitted by complainant to opposite party, requesting for supply of filter and orinated water to Krishna Nagar Area as the Chemical Examination Report in Ex A.1 says water should be filtered and chlorinated to make it fit for drinking purpose. The Ex A.7 is the representation dt 8.4 2003 of the complainant to the District Collector, same grievances such as enhancement of water tax from Rs.10/- to Rs.60/- and requests for the supply of dinking water filtered and chlorinated. The Ex A.8 is the resolution copy of 1.9.2003 and Ex A.9 is the members meeting dt 22.9.2002 (on minutes book). The facts borne in the above exhibits are not denied by the opposite party side. Hence, from the above it remains clear that the water supplied to Krishna Nagar Area are not good water and the water is not properly filtered and chlorinated and enhanced the water charges from Rs.10/- to Rs.60/- per month after the said merge.
19. All the above material in Uni-tone says that the opposite party is not supplying good water to the resident of Krishna Nagar Area and even after enhancing the charges from Rs.10/- to Rs.60/- per month. Hence there appears every deficiency of service from the opposite party’s side towards the complainant right from enhancing the charges from Rs.10/- to Rs.60/- and supplying un protected drinking water.
20. The opposite party except taking several pleas in their written version but failed to substantiate them and filling Ex B.1 to B.3 did not substantiate their bonafides and malafides of the complainant by substantiating the same by any accepting and corroborative material.
21. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above as there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite party in not supplying good water to the residents of Krishna Nagar Area and enhanced the charges from Rs.10/- to Rs.60/- per month. The complainant is remaining entitled to compensation for suffering damages and mental agony he faced at the deficient conduct and deficiency of service of opposite party.
22. Therefore in the result, the first relief sought being not within the scope of this Forum, in the absence of any material in substantiation of said claim, the said claim is dismissed. As the chemical analysis report in Ex A.1 of the questioned water says of its defect in water and the collection of water tap fees from residents being for providing good water and not certainly that water which is defective and unfit for drinking purpose. Hence, the water supplied as is proved defective there appears deficiency of service on the part of the respondent in providing drinking water which is free from defect. Therefore the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- towards this litigation expenses and the opposite party should pay the supra amount ordered within a month.
Dictated to the Stenographer Typed to the dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the open court this the 7th day of March, 2005.
Sd/-
Sd/- PRESIDENT sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
