Punjab Jal Supply

adminadmin Administrator
edited September 2009 in Government Department
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: HOSHIARPUR.


C.C.NO: 120/08.05.2008
Decided on : 1.4.2009


Khurshaid age 70 years W/o Late Jeet, R/o Village Jajjon, District Hoshiarpur.


... Complainant
versus


Jal Supply and Sanitation (P.J.S.) Sub Division, Mahilpur, Mahilpur, Distt. Hoshiarpur, through its Sub Divisional Engineer.


..... Opposite Party


Complaint u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.


Quorum: Sh. P.D. Goel, President,
Sh. A.S. Jauhar, Member.


Present: Sh. Sanjeev Bhardwaj, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Ram Chand, JE of the OP.
Sh. Feroz Khan- applicant already ex-parte.


PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT:


  1. The complainant namely Khurshaid has filed the present complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act”. Stated briefly, the facts of the case are that on 28.5.2007, the complainant applied for water connection and deposited Rs.1000/- as connection charges. Rs. 60/- were deposited on account of rent for the month of May, 2007. The complainant deposited Rs. 130/- in August, 2007, Rs. 130/- in Oct.,2007 and Rs. 250/- in December, 2007, which included water charges upto February, 2008.
  2. It is the allegation of the complainant that since May, 2007, she was regularly visiting the office of the opposite party with the request to release the water supply connection, as she has been paying the bills regularly to the opposite party. However, the opposite party failed to provide the water supply connection to the complainant, hence this complaint.
  3. The opposite party filed the reply. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. However, it is admitted that the complainant made an application for water supply connection in the month of March, 2007 which was sanctioned vide letter No. 487 dated 9.3.2007. The water connection security and connection fee of Rs.1060/- was also deposited by the complainant on 28.5.2007. It is further replied that the complainant never brought to the notice of the opposite party with regard to non-installation of water supply connection. It is further replied that the water supply connection had already been released. It is the duty of the consumer-complainant to get his water line connected with the main line. It is further replied that one Feroz Khan s/o Sh. Mohammad Sadique resident of village Jaijon gave in writing on 29.4.2008 that the complainant had unauthorisedly occupied the house, where the water connection in dispute had been sought. Said Feroz Khan had also given in writing that the matter regarding the release of watter connection is also pending in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hoshiarpur.
  4. It is further replied that the opposite party wrote a letter dated 29.4.2008 to the complainant to prove the ownership of the property. The complainant refused to receive the said letter. The replying opposite party issued another registered letter, but the same was received back with the comments “Refused, Returned to Sender”. It is further replied that the complainant never visited the office of the opposite party nor wrote any letter for the non-release of water supply connection.
  5. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit – Ex. C-1, receipts dated 28.5.2007 – Mark C-2, dated 10.8.2007 – Mark C-3, dated 9.10.2007 – Mark C-4, dated 6.12.2007 – Mark C-5 and closed the evidence.
  6. In rebuttal, the opposite party tendered in evidence reply – Ex. R-1, photocopy of letter No. 687 – Mark-A, copy of letter No. 718 dated 6.5.2008 – Mark-B, copy of Registered Cover – Mark-C, letter No. 368 dated 29.4.2008 – Mark-D and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
  7. The complainant filed written arguments. The opposite party did not intend to file written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
  8. The case of the complainant is that she applied for water connection and deposited Rs. 1,000/- as connection charges and Rs. 60/- were deposited on account of rent for the month of May, 2007 qua Mark C-2. The complainant also deposited water charges from August, 2007 to December, 2007. The grouse of the complainant is that she was regularly visiting the office of the opposite party with the request to release the water supply connection, as she has been paying the water bills regularly, but the opposite party failed to provide the water supply connection to her.
  9. The opposite party has admitted that the complainant moved an application for water supply connection in the month of March, 2007 which was sanctioned vide letter No. 487 dated 9.3.2007. It is also admitted that the amount of Rs. 1060/- as security and connection fee was also deposited by the complainant on 28.5.2007. It is further replied that one Feroz Khan s/o Sh. Mohammad Sadique r/o village Jaijon gave in writing on 29.4.2008 – Mark-D that the complainant had unauthorizedly occupied the house, where the water connection in dispute had been sought. Said Feroz Khan had also given in writing that the matter regarding the release of water connection is also pending in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hoshiarpur. The opposite party wrote a letter dated 29.4.2008 to the complainant to prove the ownership of the property. The complainant refused to receive the said letter.
  10. The opposite party has placed on record the application made by the complainant, wherein she has stated that she is the owner of the house. Admittedly, one Feroz Khan s/o Sh. Mohammad Sadique resident of village Jaijon is disputing the title of the house/property, where the water connection in dispute had been sought. Said Feroz Khan has also placed on record the copy of the Sale Deed to prove his ownership of the house, where the water connection in dispute had been sought. The opposite party has also filed on record the copy of the plaint filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hoshiarpur against the present complainant for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to vacate the house in question.
  11. Now, it is established on record that there is a dispute with regard to the ownership/title of the house, where the water connection in dispute had been sought.
  12. Now it is proved that subject matter of this complaint is sub judice before the Civil Court at Hoshiarpur, therefore, to avoid the conflicting decisions and multiplicity of proceedings and also as a matter of policy and principle, it is desirable that the present controversy should be decided by the civil court, where a civil suit is pending between the parties to the lis.
  13. As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the complaint is not maintainable , consequently, the same is ordered to be dismissed. No further direction is required to be issued as a civil suit is already pending between the parties in the civil court at Hoshiarpur with regard to the same subject matter,as such, the controversy between the parties is left to the adjudication of their rights before the Civil Court at Hoshiarpur. However, no order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record.
Announced.
1.4.2009


(A.S. Jauhar) (P.D. Goel)
Member President
Sign In or Register to comment.