The municipality has an obligation to ensure regular supply of water with adequate pressure to the locality, but compensation and cost require evidence of suffering and loss.

JUDGMENT

A.B. Pal, President - The appellant filed a complaint against the Agartala Municipal Council before the District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala alleging that in 2010, five days in July, one day in August and two days in September, the Municipality did not supply drinking water to his house and other houses of the locality. As he has been paying water tax, it is the obligation of the Municipality to supply adequate drinking water. The obligation having not discharged, there occasioned deficiency in service. His prayer was for a direction to the Municipality for regular supply of water, pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for non-supply of water and cost of Rs. 20,000.

2. The Municipality filed a written statement contending inter alia that the allegation is false. There was regular water supply to the said locality on those days which is evident from the fact that no other consumer of that locality did make for any such grievance.

3. The appellant examined himself only. No witness from the locality has been examined to support his allegation that there was no water supply on those days in the month of July, August and September 2010. The municipality also examined its Executive Officer. He stated that the Municipality issues only sanction for supply of water. The Public Health Engineering Department of the State Government is the agency to supply water and maintain adequate pressure of water. Without any response from the said department which has not been impleaded it is not possible for the municipality to take responsibility of regular supply of water particularly when no other inhabitant of the said locality made any complaint.

4. The learned District Forum after considering the above facts and circumstances directed the municipality to ensure regular supply of water with adequate pressure. No order has, however, been passed for compensation and cost. Aggrieved by the judgment the present appeal has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Commission for compensation and cost.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

6. The appellant has nowhere stated how did he calculate the loss and suffering from non-supply of water for eight days. He could aver or depose how much drinking water he had to buy for eight days. In the absence of any other witness to corroborate his claim of suffering and loss, the District Forum has rightly refused to pass any order on compensation and cost.

7. For the reasons aforementioned we find no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

No cost.