DATE OF FILING: 26.03.2016.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 04.01.2018
Dr. N.Tuna Sahu, Presiding Member:
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievances before this Forum.
2. The brief facts that are relevantly required for disposal of this consumer dispute is that he being a consumer under the O.Ps bearing Consumer No.SD1/1997 and Ledger Folio No.11640/32 regularly making payment of water charges and avails supply of water services from O.Ps. It is also stated in the complaint that he paid the water charges of Rs.1,286/- for the period 4/2015 to 3/2016 vide Book No.M 17235 and Receipt No.0430858 dated 08.06.2015. It is also stated in the complaint that the O.Ps installed a new boring water supply pipe line of P.H.D. by connecting the middle of the street with existing Rushikulya domestic water supply main line for which problem of irregularities in water supply to the residential pipe line of the street have been created and the residents of the street facing acute scarcity of supply of drinking water from P.H.D. pipe line connection. Accordingly, the complainant filed a complaint before O.P.No.2 on 25.06.2015 and sought information regarding action taken on the said complaint under Section 6(1) of Odisha Right to Information Act, 2005 on 17.07.2015. After filing of the complaint under RTI Act, the O.P.No.2 was received a letter bearing No.31dated 01.08.2015 from the Asst. Engineer, P.H., UA Tower, Berhampur who informed the O.P.No.2 that two numbers of 1 inch tapping lines have been provided to the water supply distribution line from production well pumping line on 01.08.2015 and the water supply to the aforesaid street has been improved and accordingly the O.P. No.2 also informed the complainant through RTI application. However, as alleged by the complainant even after that he could not get drinking water sufficiently from domestic pipe and for that he again filed a complaint before the O.Ps on 19.09.2015. On 09.11.2015 the complainant applied under Section 6(1) of Odisha Right to Information Act, 2005 to know what action taken by O.Ps on the representation of the complainant dated 19.9.2015. The O.P. No.2 sent a reply to the complainant in his letter No.50 dated 14.12.2015 mentioning that the Asst. Engineer, P.H. Section, U.A. Tower, Berhampur, has inspected the site and attempted to make a ‘T’ connection to the distribution line to make proper and regular water supply to his domestic pipe line but the inhabitants of that street made obstructions for the work so it was not possible to do the needful. It is also alleged that the O.Ps had done the digging work by a contractor who also obstructed the easement rights of the complainant for which he has sustained mental, physically and monitory loss. Therefore, when the O.Ps did not give any heed to his grievance, the complainant has filed this consumer complaint against the O.Ps praying to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and to supply drinking water regularly without any obstruction in the interest of justice.
3. On receipt of notice from this Forum, the O.Ps failed to put their appearance hence declared exparte on 22.08.16 and proceeded accordingly. However, the O.Ps on 12.09.2018 appeared through Shir Dillip Kumar Patra, Addl. Government Pleader (AGP), Berhampur, Ganjam and filed a petition on 19.09.2016 to set aside the exparte order dated 22.08.2016 of this Forum. This Forum rejected the set aside petition filed by the O.Ps hence the O.Ps preferred a Revision Petition vide R.P. No.79 of 2016 before Hon’ble State Commission, Odisha, Cuttack to set aside the exparte order of this Forum. The Hon’ble State Commission in its order dated 08.08.2017 dismissed the Revision Petition of the O.Ps and confirmed the order of this Forum. Therefore, on the date of final hearing the matter was heard decided against O.Ps through exparte hearing.
4. On the date of exparte hearing, we have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the pleadings and verified the documents placed on the case record. On perusal of documents it appears that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint praying to direct the O.Ps for proper and adequate supply of drinking water regularly to his household since he is a consumer under the O.Ps vide consumer No.SD1/1997 and Ledger Folio No.11640/32. As per the submissions of learned counsel for the complainant he is regularly making payment of water charges to the O.Ps and accordingly a sum of Rs.1,286/- was deposited before the O.Ps for the period 04/2015 to 03/2016 vide Book No.M.R.17235 and Receipt No.0430858 dated 08.06.2015. He further submitted that the O.Ps installed a new boring water supply pipe line of P.H.D. by connecting middle of the street with existing Rushikulya domestic water supply main line by which problem of irregularities in water supply to the residential pipe line of the street was created and the residents of the street have been facing acute scarcity of supply of drinking water from PHD pipe line connection. The same problem was informed by the complainant to O.P.No.2 through a written complaint along with others inhabitants of locality on 25.06.2015. However, due to no action on the complaint by the O.Ps, the present complainant sough information through RTI Act on 17.07.2015. As per the letter dated 01.08.2015 of O.P.No.2 intimated through RTI reply that two numbers of 1 inch tapping lines were provided to the water supply distribution line from production well pumping line on 01.08.2015 and accordingly water supply was improved. However, the complainant was not satisfied and issued an Advocate notice on 19.09.2015 but that also did not reap any fruitful results. On perusal of the case record, it also reveals that the Assistant Engineer, P.H. Section U.A. Tower, Berhampur, on 04.12.2015 intimated to the O.P.No.2 that as per complaint of the present complainant regarding improper and irregular drinking water supply to his domestic pipe line, he had investigated the site and attempted to make a “Tee” connection to the distribution line but some inhabitants of that street objected the same so he was returned without doing the needful. In the foregoing context and on perusal of the case record, it appears that the O.Ps on notice did not prefer to appear in this Forum and failed to file their written version during the statutory period of the case hence was declared exparte on 22.08.2016. On the very next date the learned counsel for the O.P. filed a petition to set aside the exparte order but the Forum rejected the said petition. Hence, the O.Ps preferred a Revision Petition vide No.79 of 2016 before the Hon’ble State CDR Commission, Odisha, Cuttack praying to set aside the exparte order dated 22.08.2016 of District Forum, Ganjam. The Hon’ble State CDR Commission, Odisha Cuttack in his order dated 08.08.2017 confirmed the order of the District Forum, Ganjam and dismissed the revision petition hence the case is proceeded exparte against the O.Ps. In the foregoing fact and circumstances, in our opinion we would like to state that the O.Ps deliberately delayed the case for disposal. It is also a fact, in this case, the O.Ps failed to file their written version during statutory period and as alleged by the complainant also failed to supply adequate drinking water to the domestic pipe line of the present complainant and on several attempts made did not comply the grievances of the complainant. In the foregoing context, in our considered view, we would like to state that the O.Ps are dealing with essential services like supply of drinking water to the households of public including the present complainant. It is a fact which is not denied or disputes rather confirmed by the letter of correspondences made with the O.Ps and informed to the complainant accordingly specifically in their letter dated 01.08.2015 and 04.12.2015 which amply proves that there was improper and irregular water supply to the domestic pipe line of the residential area of the present complainant where it was contemplated to make a “Tee” connection by the Asst. Engineer, P.H. Section, U.A. Tower, Berhampur, for proper, regular water supply to the domestic households including the household of the complainant. However, despite several requests made the O.Ps failed to provide adequate and proper drinking water regularly to the present complainant which amounts to deficiency in service since the O.Ps are service providers who are responsible for adequate and proper supply of drinking water to the customers on receipt of consideration. Non providing of proper and adequate drinking water to the domestic consumer is a negligence act on part of the O.Ps which amounts to deficiency in service and where the O.Ps are deficient in service they are liable to compensate the loss. We, therefore, direct the O.Ps to provide proper and adequate water supply regularly to the household of the present complainant.
6. As far as the issue of compensation and cost is concerned, in this case, the complainant has prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical and monetary loss. However, he has not produced any cogent and convincing documentary evidence to corroborate his loss. He has even not filed any statement of account with regard to his loss so we are not convinced to award the same against the O.Ps. However, we are convinced that the complainant has faced some inconvenience due to the negligent act of the O.Ps and have been deprived of getting adequate drinking water to his household. He has also redressed his grievances before the O.Ps but they did not give any heed to solve his water scarcity problem even after an Advocate’s notice, as a result he has filed this consumer dispute against the O.Ps in this Forum to assert his rights. He has filed this consumer dispute with the help of a professional Advocate and has paid court fee for admission and adjudication of this dispute. It is also a fact that the complainant was dragged by the O.Ps to the Hon’ble State CDR Commission, Odisha, Cuttack in R.P. No.79 of 2016 for setting aside exparte order of this Forum dated 22.08.2016. Hence, we feel that he has also been incurred some financial expenses in this way by attending the case at Cuttack. In view of the above discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that it will be just and proper to award Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to meet the legal expenses by the complainant to be paid by the O.Ps. However, we are not convinced to pass any order against the O.Ps regarding payment of compensation to the present complainant since there is no proved loss of physical, mental and financial loss. We are, therefore, not inclined to award any compensation in this case so the prayer of the complainant regarding award of compensation deserves no consideration.
7. In this case, the learned counsel for the complainant has relied on the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lucknow Development Authority versus M.K. Gupta, reported in III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC) where it was held that in case of negligent act by public authority, the concerned authority shall fix the responsibility of the officers who were responsible for causing harassment and agony to the complainant. However, on careful perusal of the said decision and examination of the nature of present dispute, we come to the conclusion that said citation is not applicable to the present dispute as the O.Ps have not deliberately caused harassment to the complaint since as per the report of the Asst. Engineer, P.H. Section, U.A. Tower, Berhampur, it was the local inhabitants of the street who were made obstructions to regularize the water supply to the household of the complainant. Besides, on perusal of the case record we failed to find any cogent and convincing documentary proof regarding deliberate harassment of the complainant by the O.Ps. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the said authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and not interested to fix personal accountability on the officers concerned due to the distinguished factual differences of both cases.
7. In the light of foregoing discussions, deliberations and considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the case of the complainant is partly allowed against the O.Ps who are directed to provide proper and adequate drinking water regularly to the household of the present complainant and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
8. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed against the O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable to supply proper and adequate drinking water regularly to the household of the present complainant. As discussed above, the O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant to meet his legal expenses. The above orders shall be complied by the O.Ps within 45 days of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order to ensure the water supply and to recover the amounts under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to compensation.
The order is pronounced on this day of 4th January 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of this order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
