K.D.SHAHI,PRESIDENT - (1.) THIS is an appeal by Kumaon Jal Sansthan against the order dated 21.8.1997 passed by the District Forum, Almora allowing a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - and Rs. 5/ - per day as compensation for non -supply of water to the complainant.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant has taken a water connection but from September 1995, there was no supply. She has to engage a labour of Rs. 30/ - per day to transport water and she has spent a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - in that.
(3.) THE opposite party filed written statement and alleged that in Almora there is shortage of water. While 7.5 M.M.D. is required, there is only availability of 3 M.M.D. water, by which supply has been affected, which is beyond the control of the department and, therefore, it cannot be said to be deficiency in service. We have gone through the complaint filed before the learned Forum. Nowhere it is written in the complaint that the complainant pays any price for the water charges. In para 3 of the complaint, it is specifically written, "Hindi matter omitted". Thus it is clear that the complainant has been paying only xx and nothing else. It is settled principle of law that payment of tax is not a consideration. It has been held in I (1994) CPJ 99 (NC)=Revision Petition No. 136 of 1993, decided on 15.12.1993, The Mayor, Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Tarapada Chatterjee and Others, by the National Commission that where complaint is against municipality for low pressure in water pipes. Tax given by the complainant is not a consideration. Water supply is the statutory duty. This is not a consumer dispute. The complainant cannot be said to be hiring services of Municipality. The complaint was dismissed. In this case the water supply is by the appellant instead of municipality but the same principle shall apply. Similarly in the ruling reported in II (2004) CPJ 183, President, Panchayat Board, Ranchi and Another v. Arunachalam and Another, it has been held that construction and maintenance of water works, providing means for water supply is a statutory duty. Availing of water supply on payment of tax is not hiring of service. This is not a consumer dispute. Supply depends upon availability of water, areas of supply, level of terrain and needs of people and for these reasons, there has not been proper supply, there is no deficiency in service. The same view has been propounded in the ruling reported in II (2000) CPJ 558, Hajarimal Munat Sanrakshan Tapka Vaste v. Nagar Palika Nigam Jalkar Vibhag, in which it has been held that inadequate water supply is not a consumer dispute. It is the statutory duty of the Corporation. Availing water supply on payment of tax does not mean hiring of services. Dispute about inadequacy of water supply is not a consumer dispute. In this ruling, several other rulings have been referred.;