PRESIDENT, SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD Vs. RAJU SRINIVAS IYENGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioners under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 675 of 2014 dated 01.06.2017.

(2.) In the Complaint Case, it was stated by the Respondent/Complainant purchased an independent house bearing No. 56 situated at South Central Railway, Accounts Colony, Picket, Secunderabad in May, 2011. It was provided with tap connection but no water was coming from the tap. On 23.05.2011, the Respondent submitted an application to Petitioner No.2 for inspection and rectification of the defects in the pipeline and requested for water supply. Thereafter, he paid Rs.11,417/- towards arrears of water dues for the last six months on 22.06.2011. Though he paid the said amounts, his problem was not resolved. On 17.01.2012, the Respondent further paid arrears in relation to water supply amounting to Rs.870/- as demanded by the Petitioners. Even after the said payment, water supply was not restored to the house of the Respondent by the Petitioners. Since, there was no water supply he was forced to reside in a rented house. On account of lethargy on the part of the Petitioners in resolving the issue, the Respondent was unable to shift from rented premises to his own house. Hence, the present Complaint was filed.

(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Petitioners, reiterating that the Complaint was not maintainable either in law or on facts. It was further reiterated that the alleged cause of action did not survive any more as officials of the Petitioners had rectified the defective lines, by laying sub-line and new pipeline to house No. 56, South Central Railway, Accounts, Colony, Picket, Secunderabad. The officials of the Petitioners had noticed on inspection that the colony pipeline was blocked in front of the Respondent's house and during the repair of a Nala, the water pipeline got damaged. Therefore, a new pipeline was laid up to the premises. After the completion of work, officials of the Petitioners obtained signature from the Respondent on the rear side of the Complaint, dated 10.05.2012. The bill raised for Rs.1,740/- at Rs.140/- per month paid by the Respondent was the minimum charges that had to be paid to the Cantonment Board as per the conditions agreed. Due to scarcity in supply of drinking water from the main source, the Petitioners were not able to supply drinking water regularly and the same problem was faced by all the residents of the cantonment area but not the Respondent alone. The allegations of the Respondent that due to non-supply of water he was not in a position to move to his own house was untenable. The Respondent was not entitled for any claim and Complaint was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.