S.K.A.T. WATERS (P.) LTD. vs SIDDARTH SIVALINGAM

WE are satisfied that this appeal is entitled to acceptance at our hands. The gist of the complaint is that the opposite party supplied contaminated drinking water as a result of which the complainant suffered some throat infection and that he sustained professional loss and, therefore, he claimed a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- in total as compensation.

OF course, the opposite party did not choose to appear and contest the case. The lower Forum accepted the case of the complainant in toto and awarded the amount as prayed for. The complainant has failed to prove that the water supplied by the opposite party was a contaminated one. The complainant himself admits in paragraph 4 that the opposite party used to process and purify the water as per the specifications prescribed by ISI and selling the same to its customers. It is not stated anywhere in the complaint how there is any deviation from the accepted process or in what manner the specification prescribed by ISI has been contravened. The complainant had relied upon the certificate issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, Office of the Assistant Director (Geochemical Lab), Taramani, Chennai which has been marked as Ex. A5 which is to the effect that the water tested has objectionable odour, low PH and colour. It also mentions that the turbidity of the sample is not within the limit and the sample is not fit for drinking purposes even though the chemical constituents are within the acceptable limits. Basing upon this, the lower Forum has come to the conclusion that the water supplied by the opposite party was contaminated. We find from Ex. A5 that the date of purchase is given as 2.6.2003, the date of collection of sample is given as 20.8.2003 and the date of receipt is mentioned as 21.8.2003. It would mean that the sample was collected on 20.8.2003 and it was received by the laboratory on 21.8.2003 and was tested on the same day. The complaint herein was filed on 31.7.2003. Therefore, the testing has been done after the filing of the complaint and without following the procedure laid down under the Act for the same. Before filing the complaint, the complainant on 18.6.2003 gave a notice where it is mentioned as follows: ".....Having doubt about the water supplied by you, we send the water bottle to the Asst. Director (Geochemical Lab), PWD Campus, Taramani, Chennai for testing and after due test, they have informed that the said water is not fit for human consumption." Therefore, according to this notice, immediately after 12.6.2003 and before 18.6.2003, the water was sent to the laboratory and was tested. But whereas we find from Ex. A5 that the sample itself was collected only on 20.8.2003 and it was tested on 21.8.2003. Therefore, how could it have been possible for the complainant to allege in his notice dated 18.6.2003 that the water was sent to the laboratory and tested. Therefore, the statement made in the notice is false and the report is one invited. These is nothing to show that the water that was collected and tested on 21.8.2003 by the laboratory was the water supplied by the opposite party. It is impossible to believe that the water supplied by the opposite party in the first week of June, 2003 was preserved by him/them till August, 2003 and sent to the laboratory in the month of August, 2003 for testing. Therefore, there is something seriously wrong with the complainant''s case. It is also to be pointed out that though the complainant was able to mention about the testing that took place subsequent to the date of notice, in the notice dated 18.6.2003, in the complaint which was filed on 31.7.2003, the complainant has not chosen to mention about the testing. Therefore, there is nothing to show that it was the water that was supplied by the opposite party that was tested by the laboratory and it was found to be contaminated. Hence, Ex. A5 has no value.

As regards, the date of purchase and date of consumption, the complainant has no clear or consistency case. The complainant has alleged vaguely in paragraph 5 that the complainant purchased and consumed water on 12.6.2003. We do not know whether he meant that it was purchased on 12.6.2003 and consumed on 12.6.2003. For, he does not specify that it was purchased earlier but was consumed on 12.6.2003. But the laboratory report mentions the date as 2.6.2003. We do not know from where they have got the information that the purchase was made on 2.6.2003. In the notice also, he has not chosen to mention as to when the purchase of water was made. He simply states that on 12.6.2003 when he drank the water, he had throat infection and vomiting. Ex. A4 is the invoice. The invoice is raised for a sum of Rs. 910/- for the supply of 26 bubble top water PC bottles, each costing of Rs. 35/-, and supplied for the period from 7.5.2003 to 30.5.2003. Thus, for this period about 26 bottles were supplied for which the invoice was raised on 2.6.2003. Therefore, there was no purchase either on 2.6.2003 or on 12.6.2003. The invoice that was raised for Rs. 910/-, was paid on 2.6.2003, for which the receipt was issued on 4.6.2003. The last of the water bottle was supplied on 30.5.2003 as per invoice. There was no other supply after. It was consumed, according to the complainant, only on 12.6.2003. Therefore, there is some lacunae in the complainant''s case in this regard which has not been explained at all. Further, we find from the dates mentioned that a bottle of water purchased, lasted for a maximum period of six days, and a minimum of 2 days. Therefore, if the last supply or purchase was made on 30.5.2003, it would have lasted only for a maximum of one week and by 6.6.2003, the bottle of water would have been exhausted. If it is so, how there was something left for him to consume on 12.6.2003 is not explained by the complainant. Even otherwise assuming that the water that was purchased on 30.5.2003 was the water sent for examination, we find that it has been sent to the laboratory only on 20.8.2003 nearly 3 months after purchase. We do not know the date of manufacture of the water. We do not know in what condition and in what container it was kept by the complainant. Therefore, there is every possibility of germination and decay when it was with the complainant for nearly 3 months. Therefore, it cannot be stated that because it is stated in the report as unfit for human consumption, it does not follow that it was in such a unfit condition either on the date of purchase namely on 30.5.2003 or on 2.6.2003 or on 12.6.2003 as contended by the complainant. Lastly, the complainant would allege that he was admitted in the hospital for treatment and that it was advised by the doctor that he should take complete rest for a period of one week. But the complainant has not chosen to produce any records from any hospital to show that he was in fact admitted for any treatment. In this connection, he has produced a prescription issued by a doctor dated 13.6.2003. The prescription does not help because it is not shown that the medicines mentioned are meant for the ailments namely throat infection, diarrhoea. Further it does not make mention of his name. Moreover, the complainant says that on 12.6.2003 after consuming the water, he was immediately rushed and admitted into a private hospital for treatment. As we have pointed out already that no record from any hospital is produced. The prescription is dated 13.6.2003, whereas his case is that he was immediately rushed on 12.6.2003.

THUS, the lower Forum has failed to take into account these important, vital and significant facts and has in a blind folded fashion accepted the case of the complainant. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant has failed miserably to substantiate his case either on the aspect of deficiency in service or on the question of his having taken ill after the consumption of water and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation at all. Hence, in such circumstances, we have to set aside the order passed by the lower Forum. Accordingly this appeal is allowed with cost of Rs. 250/-. The order passed by the lower Forum is hereby set aside. The complainant will stand dismissed with cost of Rs. 250/-. Time for compliance: Two months. Appeal allowed.