The Commission observed that water is an essential service and held that a consumer who has completed the requisite formalities and paid the prescribed fee cannot be subjected to prolonged hardship or compelled to approach the High Court to secure the basic necessity of drinking water.

Facts

The complaint was filed by Mohammad Maqbool Dar against PHE Srinagar and others, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The complainant stated that he was a poor person who had been gifted one Marla of land by his uncle for construction of a residential house. According to him, despite depositing the requisite fee for obtaining a water facility, the opposite parties failed to provide the facility for several years.

The prolonged failure compelled him to approach the High Court at Srinagar. By an order dated November 7, 2016, the High Court directed the authorities to provide the water facility to the complainant. The PHE authorities thereafter provided the facility pursuant to the High Court's order.

Contending that the prolonged denial of the facility had caused considerable hardship, inconvenience and mental agony, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission seeking ₹5 lakh as compensation, along with ₹30,000 towards litigation expenses.

Contentions of the Parties

The PHE authorities did not dispute the non-availability of water to the complainant. However, they contended that the water pipelines had been damaged by local inhabitants, which had contributed to the difficulty in providing regular water supply to the complainant.

The complainant relied upon the documents placed on record, including the receipt evidencing payment of the requisite water fee and the High Court's order directing the authorities to provide the water facility.

Commission's Observations

The Commission found that the complainant had deposited the requisite fee and completed the necessary formalities, yet was deprived of the water facility for an unreasonable period. It noted that he was compelled to approach the High Court to secure the basic necessity of drinking water.

Rejecting the PHE authorities' defence regarding damage to the pipelines by local inhabitants, the Commission held that this could not absolve them of their obligation as public service providers to take reasonable steps to ensure water supply.

The Commission further observed that providing the facility only after the High Court's intervention did not wipe out the deficiency in service that had already occurred. The prolonged deprivation caused hardship, inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant.

Decision

The Commission partly allowed the complaint, holding that the complainant was entitled to compensation for the prolonged denial of the water facility despite payment of the requisite fee.

It directed the PHE authorities to pay ₹2 lakh as compensation for the hardship, inconvenience and mental agony suffered by the complainant, along with ₹20,000 towards litigation expenses.

The authorities were directed to comply with the order within 30 days. Failing this, the awarded amount would carry 10% annual interest from the date of the order until realization.

Case Title: Mohammad Maqbool Dar v. PHE Srinagar & Ors.

Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 17/2016

Appearances: Adv. Abrar Ahmad Khan & Associates for the complainant; Adv. Mohd. Rafiq for the opposite parties.

Click Here To Read/Download Order