DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 203 of 18-03-2014

Decided on : 09-09-2014

Ram Chander Goyal aged about 75 years S/o Sh. Mattu Ram Goyal R/o Mattu Ram Street, Ward No. 12, Gurudwara Road, H. No. BVI-370, Goniana Mandi, Teh. & Distt. Bathinda.

…...Complainant

Versus

The E-Health Point Co. Pvt. Ltd., C/o Advocate Sh. M L Angi, C-7 Civil Lines, Bathinda, through its Incharge/Manager

Director, Health Point Service India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at Plot No. 67. Road No. 3, Jupiter Colony, Sikh Village, Secunderabad 500 009 Andhra Pradesh

The Executive Officer, Nagar Council, Goniana Mandi, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Sham Lal Goyal, counsel for the complainant.

For the opposite parties : Sh. M R Gupta, counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.

Sh. Rajiv Kumar Goyal, counsel for opposite party No. 3.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is using R.O. water by way of taking R.O. Cards from the opposite parties i.e. R.O Centre, Nagar Council Library, Near Mandi Chowk. On 2-5-2011, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 on behalf of company entered into an agreement with opposite party No. 3 vide resolution No. 18 dated 11-3-2011 that The Heath Point Service India Pvt. Ltd., will deliver the potable water at water works site as per WHO/BIS norms and HIS will submit an analysis report of clear water (water will be got tested from Authorized water laboratory) on six months basis. As per agreement dated 2-5-2011, the RO water is to be supplied to the general public at the site at 12.5 paise per ltr and delivering the potable water at water works site that meets WHO/BIS norms. The complainant alleged that opposite party No. 1 on behalf of opposite party No. 2 supply and deliver the potable RO water to the general public in different wards including RO centre, Nagar Council Library, Near Mandi Chowk, Goniana Mandi. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 failed to deliver/distribute the potable RO water to the general public daily from water works site as per WHO/BIS norms at all time and failed to analyze the water sample for all parameters as per WHO/BIS norms on six months basis and test uranium in the water from the reputed lab. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties issued monthly RO water supply card to the complainant whereas there is no conditions in the agreement to issue monthly card and has not mentioned any limitation period for the supply of RO water. The opposite parties have received Rs. 80/- per month on 17-5-2013, 24-9-2013, 28-10-2013 and onwards and Rs. 50/- for 15 cans from the complainant on 18-12-2014. The complainant further alleged that many times he took delivery of only 13/14 canes of 20 ltrs capacity in the month whereas he was forced to pay excess amount for monthly card. The complainant visited the opposite parties and requested them for charging for the supply of water to domestic users @ 12.5 paise per litr at water point as per terms and conditions of agreement dated 2-5-2011 and deleting the limitation period of one month as written on the RO cards and do not charge excess amount beyond the terms and conditions of agreement, but no effect. The complainant also got issued legal notice to the opposite parties in this regard but they did not pay any heed to his request. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to charge Rs. 12.5 paise per ltr for RO water being supplied to domestic user as per agreement dated 2-5-2011; delete the limitation period of one month as mentioned on the R.O. Cards; do not charge excess amount beyond terms and conditions of agreement; supply the potable water at the water works site as per WHO/BIS norms and pay Rs. 60,000/- as compensation and cost besides any other additional or alternative relief.

The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed their joint written statement and pleaded that they have introduced a monthly usage card for drawing safe drinking water upto 30 times (on a daily basis), but taking into account the need of consumers, who consumer water less frequently, they have also introduced a 15 cans card with the same validity to facilitate their use of water in a month, so it becomes a wide choice for the customer to opt either for a 30 cans card or a 15 cans card facility. The complainant has already procured both 15 cans card (on 18.2.2014 bearing card No.145 issued at Goniana Mandi) as well as 30 cans card (on 26.2.2014 bearing card No.157 issued at Goniana Mandi) that amply explains that he has the choice to exercise either one or both the cards depending upon his requirement, as such there is no force or compulsion by the organization. The opposite parties make efforts to provide the quality drinking water as per the prescribed norms and guidelines. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have further pleaded that all their treated water samples are being routinely tested on a biannual basis which is as per the agreement dated 2.5.2011 between EO Goniana and EHP. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are organizing the testing as per the norms followed by the various government district laboratories and the facilities available with the same. The Goniana Mandi area is generally not considered to be a uranium affected area, the uranium related testing has not been prescribed in any of the government testing. Considering the fact that the uranium related testing is carried out at some special laboratories as Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Mumbai and the said testing is extremely costly, the organization of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 is sending a representation-cum-request to the government authorities in the Goniana Mandi/Bathinda jurisdiction of the concerned government department to consider organizing this kind of testing. The uranium is generally found in seawater/coastal sandy belt and not in inland areas/underground bore water. The plant initiated at Goniana Mandi is during the month of May 2011 and since then the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have revised the price from Rs.12.5/- to Rs.1.5/- per liter which is an increase of about 5% average per annum (From 2011 to 2014). There has been a significant increase in the energy costs by the state government in the past three years (Almost upto 30%) and there has also been a significant increase in the consumables and spares for running the water unit in the good condition on account of the continuous inflation in the past 3 years. The Punjab Government in its recent tender (August 2013) invited parties to establish treated water kiosks in the rural area, has made Rs.90/- per month (or 15 paise per liter) as a base price for household users availing RO water. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 announced the said revision several months after the government tender notification and have also met and secured the concurrence of dozens of customers.

The opposite party No.3 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that it has been clearly mentioned in Para No.7.1 of the agreement executed between the opposite party No.3 and the opposite parties No.1 & 2 that Health Service India Limited (HIS) can revise the rate periodically, as may be required, pursuant to any hike in electricity charges, minimum wages, any associated tax etc., so the rates of RO water are increased due to increase in operational and maintenance cost and the complainant has obtained the RO card directly from the opposite party No.1. The complainant was not forced to pay the excess amount at anytime and the allegations are totally false, manipulated and created. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed and concealed the material and true facts and did not disclose the same to this Forum. The complainant was never forced to pay the excess charges and no excess charge was received from him. The RO water is being provided to the general public as per the said agreement and as per norms of WHO/BIS. All the tests of RO water are being conducted before delivering/supplying it to the general public as per the said agreement and norms of WHO/BIS.

The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

In the case in hand, the allegation of the complainant is that water sample testing is not happening as per the specified frequency and testing is not done for all the parameters including testing of uranium in the water from the lab as per the norms of WHO& BIS. The pleading of the opposite parties in this regard is that they make efforts to provide quality drinking water as per the prescribed norms. The opposite parties have stated that their all treated water samples are being routinely tested on a biannual basis which is as per the agreement dated 2-5-2011 between EO Goniana and EHP wherein in para No. 5 it has been mentioned “HSI will submit an analysis report of clear water on 6 month basis. This version of the opposite parties is duly strengthened from the laboratory reports Ex. OP-1/1 to OP-1/33 placed on file by them. Hence, in such circumstances, the version of the opposite parties that they are organizing the testing as per the norms following by the various government district laboratories and the facilities available with the same found correct.

Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties have increased the rate of treated water. As per para 7.1 of the agreement Ex. C-9, it has been agreed that HSI would treat and supply water to domestic users @ 12.5 paise per liter at water point, but it has also been mentioned in the said para of agreement that HSI can revise this rate periodically as may be required pursuant to any hike in electricity charges, minimum wages, any associates taxes etc., Thus, this contention of the complainant is not tenable in view of the agreement between the parties.

The allegation the complainant is that he is collecting only 13 to 14 times capacity of 20 litres in the month and he was forced to pay excess amount for the monthly card. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have admitted in their written statement that they have introduced a monthly used card for drawing safe drinking water upto 30 times (on a daily basis) and for the consumers who consume water less frequently, 15 cans card with the same validity to facilitate their use of water in a month. Thus, it proved on file that the opposite parties have been charging Rs. 90/- for a RO water supply card with a validity of one month i.e. for 30 canes and Rs. 50/- for 15 days i.e. for 15 canes. A perusal of agreement Ex. C-9 reveals that there is no condition in it regarding the issuance of monthly card with validity period/limitation. Thus, if the complainant is taking delivery of 13/14 can capacity of 20 liters in a month, it means that he is paying excess amount for monthly card. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties on this account.

In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 2500/- as cost against all the opposite parties. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to issue the card of RO water supply canes to the complainant without any validity/limitation i.e. subject to the completion of the supply of number of canes.

The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced in open Forum

09-09-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member