DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.183/19.11.2007 Decided on : 13.05.2008 Teja Singh S/o Sh. Bakshi Singh, resident of village Kulrian, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Water Supply & Sanitation Division(P.J.S.), Budhlada through its S.D.O., District Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. K.C.Garg, counsel for the complainant. Sh. N.K.Sharma, counsel for the opposite party. Before: Sh. Sarat Chander, Member. Mrs. Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Teja Singh (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the Water Supply & Sanitation Division(P.J.S.), Budhlada through its S.D.O., District Mansa. (hereinafter called as opposite Party) for issuance of a direction to the opposite party to release him the water supply connection and for withdrawal of Bill No.4 dated 07.09.2007, along with compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,060/- towards security vide receipt No. 42248/53 on Contd........2 : 2` : 02.08.2006 for obtaining water supply connection, as such, the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party. As directed by the opposite party, the complainant had also deposited an amount of Rs.720/- as advance payment vide receipt No.1628/166 on 04.08.2006. Despite the completion of all the formalities, the opposite party had not released him the water supply connection. It has been further alleged by the complainant that the opposite party had sent him a bill bearing No.41 dated 07.09.2007 despite the fact that no water connection has been released to him. The underground water is not fit for health, but the complainant and his family members have to utilize underground water in the absence of the supply of potable water by the opposite party. Thus the complainant and his family members also suffered loss on account of ill health by utilizing underground water which is not fit for health. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it was contended that as per their record, the water connection had already been released to the complainant and bill No.41 dated 7.9.2007 had been rightly issued to him. The water supply to the premises of the complainant is regular but the complainant had never approached the opposite party in this regard. The complainant was himself bound to lay the water pipe and as such the opposite party is not liable in this regard. The distance shown by the complainant from the main line was 12 feet, but instead it was 700/800 feet. The opposite party was ready to connect the pipe line of the complainant with the main pipeline. All other allegations were denied by the opposite party and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made. Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. Contd........3 : 3 : We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case. From the facts of this complaint, it is evident that the opposite party has not disputed the right of the complainant about the release of water supply connection. However, the only difficulty is regarding the laying of water pipeline by the complainant at his own costs to enable the opposite party to connect it with the main pipeline. It is also not in dispute that the bill for consumption of water is being issued by the OP to the complainant despite the fact that no water supply is being given to him. The complainant has placed on record Ext. C-1 receipt regarding payment of Rs.1060/-; Ext. C-2 another receipt for Rs.720/- ; Ext.C-3 Bill No.41; Ext. C-4 another bill No.13 for Rs.487/-, in which Rs.225/- had been shown as consumption charges; Exhibit C-5 request by the Sarpanch,Gram Panchayat, Kulrian and his own affidavit Exhibit C-6 to support his version. But, in exhibit OP-1, affidavit of the complainant, he has agreed to arrange for the stop cork, pipes etc. on his own. During the course of arguments, the opposite party has laid much stress only on the point that the complainant has not laid the pipe line which was required to be done by him at his own costs, to enable the opposite party to connect it with the main pipeline. The complainant now has agreed for laying the pipeline at his own costs. From the pleadings, as well as record, it has been manifestly established that no potable water is being supplied to the complainant. The version of the opposite party clearly falsifies the pleadings that continuous water supply is being given to the complainant, as no water pipeline has been laid by the complainant till today. The water consumption bills issued by the opposite party to the complainant thus requires to be Contd........4 : 4 : withdrawn by the OP. The supply of potable water is of utmost importance for human health and, as such, we are of the firm opinion that the opposite party is responsible for providing drinking water to the premises of the complainant. It also amounts to deficiency in service towards the complainant. The complainant is thus entitled to get a reasonable compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of deficiency in service shown by the opposite party by issuing the water consumption bills to the complainant without any water supply to him. As a consequence of the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to allow this complaint with a direction to the opposite party to release the water supply connection to the complainant, subject to the laying of the water pipeline by the complainant to enable the opposite party to connect it with the main pipeline, and then continue the supply of drinking water to the premises of the complainant with adequate pressure. The labour charges shall be borne by the opposite party. It is further ordered that the opposite party will not recover any water charges from the complainant for the period during which no water was supplied to the premises of the complainant, if however, any amount has been recovered by the opposite party during the above period, the same shall be refunded to the complainant. The opposite party is also burdened with Rs.500/- as consolidated costs and compensation payable to the complainant. Compliance of the order shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order which shall be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be file be consigned to record. Pronounced: 13.05.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
