Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, H.P.
Complaint Case No.94/2010
Date of Institution 26-3-2010
Date of Decision 23-3-2011-
Om Chand son of Sh.Chamaru Ram resident of Narwahan, Post Office Tikkar, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.
.. Complainant
Vs
1. Superintending Engineer, I and PH Circle, Mandi at
Sundernagar, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.
2. Executive Engineer, I and PH Baggi, Tehsil Sadar, District
Mandi, H.P.
..Opposite parties
For the complainant: Sh.R.K.Chawla, Advocate.
For the opposite party: Sh.Kulbhushan Awasthi, ADA
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
ORDER.
This complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directing the opposite parties to maintain proper water supply to the house of the complainant and further damages and cost of litigation have also been demanded.
2. The facts which gave rise to the filing of the present complaint are that the complainant has been provided water connection from water supply scheme ‘Behna-Tikkar line’ at village Narwahan on 31-10-1980. On 26-10-2009, the opposite parties gave water connection to one Sh. Moti Ram’s toilet and latrine. However, he is already having a domestic connection. The new connection was given 100 metres back from the house of the complainant which had affected the water supply to his house. Written as well as oral complaints were made to the opposite parties, but to no avail. It is claimed that after new connection was given, not even a single drop of water is coming to his house. Therefore, he has to fetch water from a distance of about one kilometre.
2. The opposite parties by filing reply has contested and contended the averments of the complaint. It is submitted that a new water connection in favour of Smt. Chinta Devi, daughter-in-aw of Sh. Moti Ram was sanctioned in October, 2009. A public tap already exist near the house of Sh. Moti Ram. The new connection has been given from main distribution line and not from the private line of the complainant. It is claimed that this connection was given after completion of the codal formalities and there is no shortage of supply to the connection of the complainant. However, water discharge is affected due to summer and drought situation and then water tanks are deployed. It is denied that pick and choose policy has been adopted to give water connection.
4. In the rejoinder, the complainant has re-asserted and re-affirmed the contentions put-forth in the complaint. It is also denied that there is drinking water in the hand pump installed near his house. Moreover, this hand pump remains dry sometimes and its water is also not fit for human consumption.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record.
6. Indisputably, the drinking water supply scheme, known as ‘Behna Tikkar’ runs in village Narwahan. From the said scheme, many connections including to Sh. Moti Ram have also been given. The opposite parties gave a new connection to Smt. Chinta Devi, daughter-in-law of Sh. Moti Ram vide Annexure C-1 dated 31-10-2008. This connection was given near about 100 metres back from the house of the complainant. This is the bone of contention between the parties and which has led to filing of the present complaint. The case of the complainant is that by giving new connection to Smt. Chinta Devi, the water supply to his tap has depleted because his house is situate at a higher elevation as compared to Smt. Chinta Devi and further no requirements were fulfilled before granting new connection. On the other hand, the ld. ADA has argued that codal formalities were completed and water supply to the house of the complainant has not been affected due to grant of the new water connection to Smt. Chinta Devi.
7. When a new connection is given, various factors like availability of the water in the mainline, affect of the new connection on the existing consumers and point from where the connection is to be given are to be seen. The complainant is an old consumer of the opposite parties because water connection was sanctioned to him in 1980. A new connection has been given to Smt. Chinta Devi from a point which is near about 100 metres before the house of the complainant. The house of Smt. Chinta Devi is at lower level as compared to the complainant’s house. The point from where the water connection has been given to Smt. Chinta Devi has been shown in the site plan prepared by Sh Deepak Garg, Executive Engineer, who visited the site on 1-10-2010. As
per the affidavits filed by the Assistant Engineer and
Executive Engineer water supply has been properly regulated and new connection has no adverse affect on the release of the water to the complainant. In a hilly area, it is necessary to maintain equilibrium in the main line and feeder line while giving new connection so that there should be proper distribution of water supply because even negligible error will affect the consumer. The complainant has filed affidavits of two other villagers, S/Sh. Tara Chand and Lal Singh besides himself to support his contention that after new connection to Smt. Chinta Devi water supply has been affected. They have deposed that the water supply to new connection of Smt. Chinta Devi has been given from a point which is at a down level as compared to the complainant’s connection. This is further supported by the report Annexure C-10 of the concerned linesman who supported the allegations of the complainant. The linesman is the best person to say about the flow of water supply because he uses to regulate the water supply in the said area. He has categorically mentioned that the connection has been given from down side affecting the supply to the complainant.
8. Not to speak of evidence as discussed above, spot inspection done by Deepak Garg, Executive Engineer also support the case of the complainant. He has suggested that if water connection is given to both complainant and Smt. Chinta Devi from point D, as shown in the site plan, the matter can be settled. This in the other sense implies that water supply to the house of the complainant has been adversely affected due to new connection. Even the opposite parties in reply have admitted that in the last summer there was scarcity of water and the water tank was pressed into service. The opposite parties have withheld the best evidence i.e. availability of the water in the line, test report prepared before granting new water connection to Smt.Chinta Devi etc. It has also been disclosed by the Sh. Deepak Garg in the additional affidavit that second connection cannot be given to the member of the same family, but the record has not been filed to show that Smt. Chinta Mani has fulfilled this requirement. It implies that the opposite parties want to hide something.
9 In view of aforesaid discussion, we come to this conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by not examining the feasibility before the grant of new connection and this has adversely affected the supply of water to the complainant. The opposite parties cannot say that public tap is already in existence near about 15 meters away from the house of the complainant because this principle is also applicable to Smt. Chinta Devi as in the reply it is mentioned that a public tap also exists near the house of Moti Ram. This fact cannot be lost sight that private connection has been given to the complainant in 1980. The opposite parties without following the procedure for granting new connection have given connection to Smt. Chinta Devi. No doubt, the opposite parties are competent to provide new connection after completion of codal formalities but this does not mean that water supply of other persons should be affected. This fact was not taken into consideration that house of the complainant is situate at a higher elevation. Hence, it is clear that the opposite parties by way of arbitrary and unwarranted action have made the complainant to suffer for his no fault.
10 In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to ensure the adequate supply of water to the complainant and to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation.
11 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.
12. File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced
23-3-2011 (Rajeev Bhardwaj) President
*DKM* (Lal Singh) Member