BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 23^rd DAY OF AUGUST 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OPs to provide her water connection and to pay her a sum of Rs.2,08,000/- and cost of the proceedings.

 2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant who owns a house at No.251, 1^st main, Mayanna Layout, Sreekanthapura, has paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- to OP-1 on 23.06.2014 for providing her a water connection.  OP after having received the said amount issued receipt but till today failed to provide her water connection.  That the complainant went to the office of OP-1 more than 15-20 times and called over phone several times requesting to provide immediate water connection but OP went on protracting the matter and failed to provide water connection.  That the complainant thereafter wrote letters on 27.11.2014, 19.12.2014 and 31.12.2014 requesting for water connection but OP-1 failed to provide water connection with some oblique motive.  That the complainant is facing hardship and inconvenience without water connection and she was forced to spend more than Rs.90,000/- for purchasing water.  Since OPs failed to provide water connection despite collecting requisite fees, she was compelled to approach this Forum with this complaint.

For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant prays for an order directing the OP to provide her water connection and damages/compensation as prayed for in the complaint together with litigation cost.

3. OP-1 in response to the notice entered his appearance through his advocate and filed his version admitting receipt of Rs.3,000/- on 23.04.2014 from complainant for providing water connection and further contended that whenever any water connection sought, the water connection would be provided till the compound wall/main gate of the premises and the owner of the house has to make arrangements for internal connection from the compound wall/main gate.  That the OP-1 has provided water connection to the complainant by drawing water line from the starting point/water tank till the compound wall/main gate of complainant and she has to arrange for her internal connection from her main gate.  That there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs.

For the aforesaid reasons, OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

OP-2 despite service of notice failed to appear.  Therefore was placed ex-parte.

4. The complainant authorized her husband to prosecute the complaint and accordingly he filed his affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  The complainant also produced the relevant documents to substantiate her claim made in the complaint.  One Veerabhadra Swamy who is now the Panchayath Development Officer working in the office of OP-1 filed his affidavit evidence reiterating the averments made in the version.  OP-1 also produced certain photographs and documents in support of the averments made in the version.

5. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        6. Both the parties have submitted their written arguments.  Also heard oral arguments advanced by authorized agent of complainant and perused the material placed on record.

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

          8. OP-1 admits receipt of Rs.3,000/- from the complainant on 23.04.2014 towards providing water connection to her house.  Admittedly despite receipt of the requisite amount from the complainant and despite her three letters as well as several visits OP failed to provide water connection to her house till she filed this complaint.  In their written arguments it is stated by the OP that they have provided water connection to the house of the complainant till compound wall/main gate on 20.02.2015.  OP also produced certain documents and photographs to substantiate that the water pipes were laid till the compound wall/main gate of the complainant on 20.02.2015.  However either in their version or sworn testimony OP-1 did not explain as to why the water connection was not provided to the complainant immediately or within reasonable time after receipt of the requisite amount of Rs.3,000/- from her.  The complainant has addressed a letter dated 27.11.2014 requesting OP-1 to provide immediate water connection, when her oral request failed to yield any results.  OP-1 has made endorsement on copy of the said letter for having received the same.  When OP-1 failed to respond to the said letter the complainant has addressed another letter dated 31.12.2014 to OP-1 requesting him for providing water connection immediately.  This letter has also been received by the OP-1.  However, again OP-1 has failed to comply the demand made in the letter.  When the OP-1 failed to provide her water connection despite her repeated requests and letter, the complainant has approached OP-2 with a request to direct OP-1 to provide her immediate water connection.  OP-2 has transmitted the complaint received from complainant to OP-1 for immediate action.  The complainant has produced a letter dated 01.01.2015 written by OP-2 to OP-1, the copy of which has been marked her.  It is apparent that even after receipt of the said letter from OP-2, OP-1 has not bothered to provide water connection to the complainant.

9. The conduct of OP-1 in not providing water connection to complainant despite receipt of requisite fees and despite her repeated requests certainly amounts to grave deficiency of service.  Having received the requisite fee the OP-1 is duty bound to provide water connection to complainant.  It is pertinent to note that, OP-1 never bothered to reply to the requisition submitted by the complainant requesting for immediate water connection.  OP-1 also did not provide any explanation either in his version or in his sworn testimony as to why there was inordinate delay in providing water connection to complainant.  Absolutely there was no reason for OP-1 in not providing water connection to complainant within reasonable time after receipt of requisite fees from her.  It appears to us that OP-1 deliberately failed to provide water connection to the complainant.  Though OP-1 claimed that they have laid pipe line till the main gate of house of complainant but complainant denied the same and contended that till now no such pipe line has been laid till her house.

10. The complainant has produced a receipt to show that she has purchased necessary materials to install/fix a tap in her house.  However OP-1 has failed to provide her water connection.  Though OP-1 has produced certain documents and photographs to support his claim that a water pipeline has been laid upto house of the complainant but there is nothing in the said documents and photographs to indicate that the said work has been done till the house of the complainant as claimed.  The photographs produced by OP-1 does not indicate that the pipe line has been laid up to the house of complainant.  In absence of relevant documents and affidavit of neighbourers of complainant it is difficult to accept the contention of OP-1 that water line has been drawn upto the house of complainant on 20.02.2015.

11. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the clear opinion that OP-1 with certain oblique motive has deliberately did not provide water connection to the house of the complainant despite payment of requisite fees by her.  As already stated above, OP-1 failed to provide any reasons in not providing water connection to the house of the complainant within reasonable time from the date of receipt of the requisite fee.  Non providing of water connection to the complainant must have put her to great hardship, inconvenience and mental agony.  It is contended by the complainant that she was forced to spend nearly Rs.90,000/- as on the date of complaint for purchasing water from tankers.  She has also produced receipts to substantiate her spending money towards hiring water tankers.  When OP-1 has failed to provide her water connection the complainant had no other option but to purchase water from tankers by spending huge amount.  The conduct of OP-1 in not providing water connection to the complainant has made her to spend huge money for purchasing water.  Therefore, OP-1 has to be directed to compensate the complainant towards the money she has spent for buying water.  OP-1 alone is responsible for this state of affairs.

12. The complainant has successfully proved deficiency of service on the part of OP-1.  However there are no any allegations of deficiency of service on the part of OP-2.  Therefore, complaint as against OP-2 is liable to be dismissed.

13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate to direct the OP-1 to provide water connection to the complainant within 15 days from the date of the order.  The interest of justice will be met by awarding damages/compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant to be paid by OP-1 towards deficiency of service as well as expenses incurred by her towards purchase of water from tankers together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.       

14. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency. 

15. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OP-1 is directed to provide water connection to the house of the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order.  Further OP-1 shall pay compensation/damages of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for deficiency of service and towards expenses incurred by the complainant for buying water from tankers together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Complaint against OP-2 is dismissed.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 23^rd day of August 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 19.05.2015.

1. Sri.S.R Raju.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party-1 dated 27.06.2015.

1. Sri.Veerabhadra Swamy.   

Documents produced by the Opposite Party-1:

  MEMBER                           MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

   Vln*