DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA Complaint No.110/6.8.2008. Decided on : 17.4.2009 Prem Kumar alias Prem Chand son of Sh.Hans Raj resident of Kabir Colony, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Sub Divisional Engineer, Water Supply and Sewerage Department, Water Works, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District, Mansa. 2.Nagar Council, Budhlada through its Executive Officer, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District, Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. Zanny Kath, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh. N.K.Shamra, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party No.1. Sh. Sudhir Garg, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party No.2. Before: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed by Sh.Prem Kumar alias Prem Chand son of Sh.Hans Raj, a resident of Kabir Colony, Budhlada District, Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the Act), against Sub Divisional Engineer, Water supply and Municipal Council, Budhlada through its Executive Officer. Briefly stated Contd........2 : 2 : the case of the complainant, is that he had got installed water connection bearing Account No. 120/4 from the opposite parties in his house for domestic consumption and he deposited the connection charges vide receipt No. 374/53 dated 31.12.2007 in the office of the opposite party No.1. The complainant has paid the entire amount on account of supply of water charges, as such, he is consumer under the opposite parties. Since the complainant no more needs the water connection, therefore, he filed an application on 1.1.2008 in the office of the Opposite Party No.1 with the request to disconnect the same, but opposite parties refused to disconnect the water connection. The complainant again sent application containing similar requests through Registered post and informed the opposite parties that he has not been drawing water through connection issued in the name since 1.1.2008. In fact water connection was disconnected earlier by the opposite parties and he had stopped drawing water. Since the opposite parties have not formally disconnected the water connection installed for supply of water to the house of the complainant, as such, there is deficiency in service on their part and he has suffered mental and physical harassment due to conduct of their officials and they have served upon him Bill No. 163/013 dated 20.7.2008 raising demand of illegal amount. The complainant has also suffered a financial loss in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence the complaint for giving direction to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned notice and payment of Rs. 70,000/- on account of financial loss and adequate amount on account of mental and physical harassment. 2. On being put to notice, Opposite Party No.1 filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that there is no office of Sub-Divisional Engineer, at Budhlada as SDO, Mansa has been given additional charge of said post , at Budhlada, but even the SDO, Mansa has no concern with the office of Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Budhlada as Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Municipal Council, Budhlada Contd........3 : 3 : being owner of both the schemes of water and sewerage board has withdrawn authority to supply water to the consumers and collect charges on its behalf. The grievance of the complainant, if any, has to be looked into by Opposite Party No.2. On merits it is reiterated that action is to be taken by Opposite Party No.2, for disconnecting water connection installed in the premises of the complainant. 3. The opposite party No.2 has filed separately written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that he has unnecessarily been impleaded as party in the complaint because it has no concern either in installation of water connection or disconnection thereof; that no application has been filed in the office of the answering opposite party by the complainant and he has filed the complaint with intention to harras the answering opposite party. As such the same is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. It is submitted that complainant might have secured water connection from Opposite Party No.1, but answering opposite party has no intimation about the said fact. It is denied that the complainant had ever approached the answering opposite party for disconnection of the water connection secured by him for supply of water to his premises. Rest of averments made in complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with special costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum , to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Exhibit C-1 and copies o document Ext.C-2 to C-5. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 closed his evidence after tendering copies of document Exhibit OP-A and OP-B, whereas counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Ashok Kumar, Exhibit OP- 1 and closed his evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone through, the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance. Contd........4 : 4 : 6. At the out set, the counsel for the complainant Sh. Zanny Kath, Advocate has submitted that amount demanded by Opposite Party No.1 has been deposited by him during the pendency of the complaint. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that earlier no notice of demand had been sent by opposite party No.1 although complainant filed more than one application. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that opposite party no.1 was agent of Opposite Party No.2 for supply of water and disconnection of water connection in the house of the consumers, as such, neither principal nor agent can escape liability to pay compensation to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that opposite parties be directed to disconnect the water connection and to pay compensation for mental and physical harassment. 7. On the other had learned counsel for the opposite party No.1, Sh. N.K.Sharma, Advocate, has submitted that as per the rules on the subject, water connection is to be disconnected, by the consumer himself, but complainant has not conveyed any such information and opposite parties have only raised demand ,whereas complainant has himself deposited the amount during pendency of the complaint. Learned counsel has argued that opposite party No.2 has withdrawn the authority for supply of water to the consumers and collection of charges from them w.e.f. 1.9.2008, as such, action for disconnection, if any, is to be taken by Opposite Party No.2, to whom entire record of supply of water to the consumers, has been delivered and no liability can be fastened upon opposite party No.1 as it has acted on behalf of opposite party No.2 before withdrawal of authority as an agent. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 Sh. Sudhir Kumar Garg, Advocate has submitted that no record has been supplied by opposite party no.1 at the time of withdrawal of authority to opposite party no.2 and complainant has not filed any application in the office of Municipal Council, Budhlada for the said purpose, as such, no liability can be Contd........5 : 5 : fastened on his client and opposite party No.2 cannot be said to be deficient in service on account of which complainant may seek compensation from him because of any lapse on the part of its agent to comply with his instructions to disconnect the water supply or delay therein. 9. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant, because it is not disputed that he had filed applications for disconnection of his water connection before the work of issue of water connections to the consumers and collection of water charges from them was withdrawn by the Opposite Party No.2 from the Opposite Party No.1. It is also not disputed that Opposite Party No.1, had been earlier acting as agent of Opposite Party No.2. As such, neither agent nor principal may aboligate responsibility to comply with the instructions issued by the consumer, who no more needs water connection for the purpose it was installed in his premises at his instance. The submission of record at the time of withdrawal of work assigned to Opposite Party No.1. by Opposite Party No.2, is their internal matter, in which a consumer has no role to play. The disconnection of water connection by the consumer himself may amount to inconvenience to other consumers of water supply. As such, we are unable to accede to the submission made by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1. that there is no deficiency in service on the part of his client, because consumer himself is required to disconnect the water supply. However, even if, the said plea is entertained, formal order has to be passed by the service provider, so that consumer is discharged of the liability to make the payment of water charges in future. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and facts borne on record, we have no hesitation in holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of both the opposite parties in not taking action on the applications filed by the complainant to order formal disconnection of his water connection and due to inaction on the part of their officials, he has Contd........6 : 6 : been subjected to mental and physical harassment, which cannot be said to be justified, from any stretch of imagination, even if, no bill seeking fresh demand has been sent after complainant filed the applications before Opposite Party No.1. to formally disconnect the water connection installed in his premises. As such, he deserves to be adequately compensated for inconvenience caused to him and avoidable expenses incurred by him for filing of the instant complaint. The payment of amount by the complainant during the pendency of the complaint is also of no significance because it is not the plea of either parties that some amount was outstanding towards him on account of water charges. The fact, in our opinion, rather proves the bonafide on the part of the complainant that he complied with the demand of the opposite parties without protest, even if, no notice has been served upon him. Therefore, principle of estopple is also not attracted in the facts of these cases. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties to order formal disconnection of water connection installed in the premises of the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-, to him on account of compensation for physical and mental harassment and a sum of Rs.1,000/-, on account of costs, incurred by him for filing of instant complaint. The compliance of this order be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 12. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 17.04.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
