BALAM RAM vs State of Himachal Pradesh

THE appellant/complainant (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant) has preferred this appeal against the order of the learned District Forum, Mandi, dated 24.6.1997, whereby the complaint of the complainant has been dismissed with a direction to the respondents to restore the water connection to the complainant on the receipt of wheel-valve from the complainant.

THE complainant has alleged deficiency of service on the part of the respondent-Government, Irrigation & Public Health Department in disconnecting the water supply, although notice for disconnection had not expired. According to the respondents, the water supply was rightly disconnected as the wheel-valve installed in the pipe line leading to the house of the complainant was broken, which was admittedly, required to be supplied by the complainant, was not supplied by him and as such not only his water supply was affected, but the water supply of other villagers was also suffering. There is no dispute between the parties that the notice was required to be served on the complainant before disconnection of water supply. According to the respondents, the notice for replacing the broken wheel-valve was issued to the complainant on 13.2.1997 under certificate of posting (UPC). Thereafter, another reminder notice was issued to the complainant on 19.2.1997. Both the notices have been denied by the complainant. No doubt, the notice was sent to the complainant under certificate of posting (UPC) on 13,2.1997, but once it is denied emphatically in the complaint and otherwise that such notice was never received, the presumption of sending such notices stands rebutted. Even if the other notice dated 19.2.1997 is admitted to be true, that would have expired on 22.2.1997, whereas, admittedly, the water supply was disconnected on 20.2.1997 earlier to the expiry of notice. Possibly, had the notice been received by the complainant, the wheel-valve could have been made available to the Department by the complainant immediately. In fact, the District Forum has rightly held that water connection was disconnected before the expiry of the notice. However, he has held that it is not deficiency in service.

We are afraid such a conclusion is not correct. Once the disconnection of water supply has been termed as arbitrary without the expiry of notice, certainly it comes within the purview of deficiency of service and the complainant is liable to be indemnified for the arbitrary action of the respondents.

HOWEVER, the next question that requires consideration is as to what amount of compensation is to be awarded to the complainant to indemnify for the loss he has suffered because of non-supply of water. There is no dispute that broken wheel-valve has been supplied late by the complainant to the respondents and there was public pressure upon the respondents to disconnect the water supply of the complainant, as the water was not reaching at the tail-end of the village. Having regard to over-all circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if the respondent-Irrigation & Public Health Department are ordered not to charge water charges for one year from the complainant with effect from 1st January, 1998 to 31st December, 1998 and is ordered accordingly. In the result, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the appeal stands disposed of in he above terms. Appeal disposed of.