KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY And DRAINAGE BOARD vs P.HANUMANTHAPPA

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 31.1.1991 passed by the District Forum, Gulbarga in Complaint No. 69/1990 on its file.

IT arises in this way : The Respondent is supplied water by the appellant through Connection No. 6536 on 9.7.1990. IT was suddenly disconnected without any reason and therefore the respondent gave a complaint as per exhibit P 1 to the Executive Engineer of the appellant. The Asst. Engineer stated that the disconnection was to repair the leakage caused due to rust at the point of connection to the house of the respondent. On 11.7.1990, the Respondent got the required material costing Rs. 60.25 as per exhibit P2 and supplied the same to the workers of the appellant and the water supply was restored at 11.30 a.m. on 11.7.1990. According to the complainant he had to spend some amount by going to the shop and getting those articles and he also spent some amount for getting food and tiffin from hotels to himself and to his family members when there was no water supply for two days. Hence, he filed a complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 1,358.25. The complaint was resisted by the appellant by contending inter alia that the water connection to the house of the complainant had to be disconnected due to the repairs to be carried out to prevent leakage on that spot and that they had intimated the complainant about the disconnection; that the repair work was carried out after replacing deteriorated and rusted fittings and water supply was restored on 11.7.1990; that as the disconnection was to prevent leakage, it is not liable to pay any compensation. The complainant gave evidence as PW1 and produced exhibits P 1 to P4. The Junior Engineer gave evidence as RWl. On the said material, the District Forum held that the disconnection was due to the leakage and not without any reason as urged by the complainant; that there was negligence on the part of the officials of the KUWS & DB is not repairing it immediately and causing delay of two days and awarded compensation of Rs. 560/- and costs of Rs. 100/- to the complainant. Hence this appeal by the KUWS & DB.

Mr. NSG on behalf of the appellant urged that as the disconnection was to prevent leakage, the respondent is not entitled to any compensation in view of Section 55(a) of the Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') 1973. The respondent on the other hand urged as the officials of the appellant were negligent in committing delay of two days and due to that he was put to inconvenience and therefore the order passed by the District Forum, is proper. According to the Section 55(a) of the Act, the Board shall not be liable to pay penalty or damages for cutting off the supply of water or for not supplying water in the case unusual drought, other unavoidable cause or accident, or the necessity for relying or repairing pipes. In this case, the Asst. Engineer (RW 1) in unequivocal terms stated in his evidence that he noticed leakage at the point of connecting water supply to the residence of the respondent and due to that, the water supply to his house had to be disconnected on 9.7.1990. He has also stated that the fittings such as ferrule and bend were rusted and due to that there was leakage. The learned Counsel for the appellant produced the original complaint filed by the respondent and the order made by the Executive Engineer thereon. On the complaint, the Asst Engineer has made an endorsement about the leakage of the rusting of the fittings on that day itself. That was brought to our notice. As the respondent contended that this leakage has not been mentioned in the explanation given by the Junior Engineer to the Executive Engineer on that day. On going through the endorsement, we are satisfied, the disconnection had to be done in order to carry out the repairs to stop the leakage. The District Forum has also reached the conclusion that there was leakage after accepting the evidence of RW-1. It was for the respondent to supply the fittings as they were required to give water connection to his residence. Hence he is not entitled to refund of Rs. 60.25 and the cost of auto charges for getting the same. As the disconnection had to be done for carrying out repairs to prevent leakage, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation in view of Section 55(a) of the Act. Hence, the order of the District Forum awarding compensation of Rs. 560/- to the complainant cannot be sustained.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the Order of the District Forum is set aside. Parties to bear their own costs throughout Appeal allowed.