MADRAS METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD , CONSUMERS' COUNCIL OF INDIA vs Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board , CONSUMERS' COUNCIL OF INDIA

BOTH these appeals arises out of the order dated the 10th October, 1991 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras.

BEFORE we take up Appeal No. 38 of 1992, we may mention here that the First Appeal No. 140 of 1992 is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that it is barred by time. As noticed earlier, the order was passed on 10th October, 1991. According to the appellant (who was complainant before the State Commission) in that appeal, copy of the order was obtained on 6.12.1991. The appeal was filed on 30th March, 1992. The only grounds stated for condonation of delay in filing that appeal are that the allottees/residents of Kaviarasu Kannadasan Nagar including the complainant honestly believed that the order of the State Commission would be carried out in its letter and spirit and water would be supplied as agreed upon before the State Commission. Further, the complainant had to go to his native place to arrange for the marriage of his daughter which was held on 6th March, 1992 in Salem. We are of the opinion that both these grounds are not sufficient for condoning the delay in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation after obtaining a copy of the order on 6th December, 1991. Accordingly, we dismiss the application filed in that appeal for condonation of delay in filing the appeal long after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. Now we take up Appeal No. 38 of 1992. The complaint was filed by the Consumer Council of India, Kaviarasu Kannadasan Nagar Unit, Madras against the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply land Sewerage Board (for short the Board) & Others. The complaint was filed on behalf of the residents of Kaviarasu Kannadasan Nagar which came into existence in 1981 under a Scheme which had been proposed and carried out by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2,183 plots were allotted to the various persons. Water connections had also been provided for every house by the Housing Board even before the possession of the houses was handed over to the respective allottee. The problem which is now faced by the residents of the colony is total lack of drinking water. The ground water in this area is brackish and therefore there is no use in tapping that water. The Housing Board had put a sump and overhead tank for the supply of drinking water to every house, but no water is available. The complainant in the complaint prayed for the following reliefs : (a) To provide and supply good drinking water to all the 2,183 plot allottees of the 3rd Opposite Party through the pipe lines of the 1st Opposite Party and by it, in Kaviarasu Kannadasan Nagar, Madras, without further loss of time;

(b) to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) to these allottees (2,183 allottees) in Kaviarasu Kannadasan Nagar, Madras for the loss, mental agony, prolonged sufferings and injury caused to them; The complainant also prayed for costs and requested the State Commission to make such further or other orders as was necessary under the circumstances.

The Opposite Party No. 1, Le., the Board, who is appellant (in Appeal No. 38) before this Commission, filed a counter. The other opposite parties were the Madras Metropolitan Water Development Authority and the Executive Engineer, Sites & Services, Division No. III, Tamil Nadu Housing Board. As no reliefs were granted against the other parties, therefore, they have not come up in appeal before this Commission and hence it is not necessary to refer to their versions.

THE operative part of the order of the State Commission reads as follows : "We therefore order the Metropolitan Authority to immediately take step to provide one public fountain in each street and supply water to this public fountain every day both in the morning and in the evening from the sump and overhead tank to be filled by lorries and the supply every day shall into be less than six lac litres. This shall be carried out within a period of six months from now." The appellant herein has challenged the decision of the State Commission on the ground that the complainant was not a ''consumer'' nor the dispute came under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was also pleaded that the complainant had not hired any service for consideration from the appellants as the scheme had been launched jointly by the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 who had collected money from the allottees. The main contention of the appellant is that the appellant took over the above referred Nagar only during October, 1986. There is not sufficient water for supplying to the sump and the overhead tank and hence could not supply water to the allottees through the house taps. They have put up 26 up steel tanks in all the 9 blocks in this area and they were supplying water to those tanks by lorries twice a day.

ACCORDING to the complainants the supply of water through lorries was hardly sufficient and more over the supply was erratic. Their grievance is that they are literally suffering for want of drinking water. The Commission sent for the Area Engineer, Metro Water and the matter was discussed with him in detail as to how to alleviate the grievances of the residents of that Nagar and to mitigate their suffering. The Area Engineer explained that there was long term scheme to supply water to that area from the Madhavaram Pumping Station by connecting this area with Redhills after the supply of Krishna Waters. The Commission felt that it was a long term scheme which might take years to fructify and the unfortunate residents of that Nagar could not keep their body and soul together till then and some immediate step should be taken for supplying drinking water to the residents of that Nagar as they were not satisfied with the supply of water in tanks by lorries because of the various difficulties faced by them and because of irregular supply of water. The residents wanted some steady and regular supply of water at least in public fountains (Public Hydrants). It may be mentioned here that no public fountains were erected at the time of construction of this colony as individual tap connections to every house for the supply of regular water had been provided. It was also noticed that the sump had a capactiy of 22 lac litres, while the overhead tank had the capacity of 11 lac litres and it was not possible to get this quantity of water for filling up the sump or overhead tank in order to provide water to every house through the house taps. After discussion with the Area Engineer, the State Commission came to the opinion that water should be supplied through public fountains in each street with a lesser quantity through the sump and overhead tank. The Area Engineer had also agreed that about 5 or 6 lac litres of water would be necessary for supplying through these public fountains in each street by mobile supply but he expressed that it would take atleast six to seven months to lay new pipe lines for supplying water through the public fountains in every street. The Counsel for the complainant and most of residents of the area who were present before the State Commission accepted this suggestion. Thereupon the State Commission passed the order, the operative part of which has been reproduced in the earlier part of this order. It appears that the Area Engineer had expressed his views without proper authority from the Board. The appellant has, therefore, stated in the memorandum of appeal that the order passed by the State Commission is against law and probabilities (?) of the case and it was not possible for them to provide water as ordered by the State Commission without funds. It was further pleaded that unless the Government sanctioned the funds, the appellant could not do anything and even if the Government provided funds it would take at least 12 to 18 months from the date of sanction of funds to carry out the work.

AFTER hearing the Counsel for the appellant, Mr. R.P. Kabilan, we are of the opinion that the State Commission exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the order in question. Even if it is assumed for arguments'' sake that the appellant had hired for consideration the services of the appellant Board for supplying water, even then the State Commission was not justified in passing the order in question. Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act defines the reliefs which can be granted to a consumer. In case the allegations contained in a complaint are found true, only reliefs mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d) can be granted to the complainant. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) relate to the sale/supply of goods. In the present case, there is no question of sale or supply of goods. Therefore, the case at the most is governed by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of the above section. That Clause reads as follows : "to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party".

IF there is any deficiency in the rendering of service by the appellant and on account of that deficiency and negligence the appellant suffered any loss or injury, compensation could be awarded to the consumer. Direction of the nature issued by the State Commission cannot be issued under Section 14 of the Act. There is no other provision in the Act which authorises the various Forums constituted under the Act to issue such directions. Hence, we have no alternative but to accept this Appeal No. 38 of 1992 and set aside the order passed by the State Commission. In the light of the above observations, we dismiss First Appeal No. 140 of 1992 while Appeal No. 38 of 1992 is accepted and the order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the complaint filed by the Consumers Council of India, Kaviarasu Kannadasan Nagar Unit is dismissed. We make no order as to costs in both the appeals. Appeal dismissed.