Refund Sector-7 woman over delayed water connection: Panel to MC

According to the order, the complainant applied for a separate water connection for the first floor of her house and deposited ₹8,230 with the corporation’s building and roads (B&R) department

Holding that a public authority cannot retain a consumer’s money after failing to provide the promised service, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh, has directed the UT municipal corporation (MC) to refund the remaining amount collected for a water connection that was later found to be technically unfeasible and to pay compensation for the prolonged delay.

The commission directed the municipal corporation to refund the balance amount of ₹2,237 along with ₹10,000 as compensation towards mental harassment and litigation expenses within 45 days. (HT File)

The commission, comprising president Amrinder Singh Sidhu and member BM Sharma, partly allowed a complaint filed by Sector 7 C resident Geeta Kapoor and directed the MC to refund the balance amount of ₹2,237 along with ₹10,000 as compensation towards mental harassment and litigation expenses within 45 days.

According to the order, the complainant applied for a separate water connection for the first floor of her house and deposited ₹8,230 with the corporation’s building and roads (B&R) and public health (water supply) departments in 2024. Subsequently, the authorities informed her that a separate connection could not be provided because the existing pipeline system supported only a single connection for the building.

Following this, Kapoor sought a refund and submitted the required documents. However, despite repeated visits, emails, representations, legal notices and grievances filed before the Right to Service Commission, the refund was not processed for a considerable period

The commission noted that only ₹1,103 was refunded in July 2025. During the pendency of the consumer complaint, the corporation refunded another ₹4,890, leaving a balance of ₹2,237.

Observing that the authorities ought to have verified the technical feasibility of providing the water connection before accepting the application and charges, the commission held that their failure could not justify retaining the consumer’s money for nearly two years.

“The retention of a consumer’s money without rendering the promised service amounts to deficiency in service,” the commission observed, adding that the unjustified delay in processing the refund despite repeated requests also amounted to unfair and arbitrary conduct.

The commission further held that the subsequent refund of a substantial portion of the amount during the pendency of the proceedings established that the complainant’s claim was genuine, but late payment did not absolve the authorities of liability for the delay and the harassment caused.

The order also recorded that the municipal corporation and its B&R department failed to file their written reply within the prescribed period, leading the commission to strike off their defence. The executive engineer of the public health department was proceeded against ex parte after failing to appear before the commission.