BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 19th January 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
SMT. SHARADAMMA H.G : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.342/2012
(Admitted on 21.11.2012)
Sri Ramesh Anchan,
S/o Subba Kotian,
R/at Dejamma Compound,
Door No.2.83 (1),
Bollur, Koyikude village,
Via Haleyangadi 574146
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri BNK)
VERSUS
1. Mr. Lokanath,
Panchayat Development Officer,
Haleyangadi Grama Panchayat,
Haleyangadi, Mangalore Taluk
2. Panchayat Development Officer
Kemral Grama Panchayat,
Kemral, Mangalore Taluk.
….....OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 & No 2: Sri GBP)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant contends for supply of water to his residence at request of opposite party collected Rs.1,500/ from complainant under the receipt No.146145 dated 7.9.2004 and as per second demand of 9.3.2010 as per receipt No.092132 Rs.1,000/ and the amount transferred to opposite party No.2. When complainant approached higher authorities of opposite party No.1, opposite party No.1 was directed to provide water for complainant. The complainant claims he was selectively discriminated in the matter of water supply dated 10.07.2004 some 633 residential buildings namely the jurisdiction of Haleyangadi Gram Panchayat provided with water facility. Hence seeks direction to opposite party to provide water connect to complainant and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ as compensation and another Rs. 4000/ towards cost.
II. Opposite party No.1 in the written version admits the receipt of this Rs.1,500/ receipt dated 7.9.2004 the amount however were received by Haleyangadi Gram Panchayat. The receipt that the amount was received by Secretary who was also functioning to Kemral Grama Panchayath and as donations to this committee for water supply not as fees for supplying of water. No name of any person of Kemral Grama Panchayath showed by complainant supplying with water by opposite party No.1 Grama Panchayath. The complainant not being a resident of Haleyangadi Gram Panchayat the amount was returned to him by cheque No.29735 dated 26.7.2012 that was returned by complainant. A fresh cheque dated 2.1.1203 is also produced hence seeks dismissal no discrimination.
2. Opposite party No.2 in the written version contends that complainant had contributed Rs.1,000/ and he is resident of Koikude village come within the jurisdiction of this Panchayath it is in the periphery of this Panchayath. That time there were very few houses in that area and the scheme was not introduced into that area. Hence the complainant sought for refund of amount and refunded him as per the resolution No.6/2004.05 dated 6.04.2004 of Grama Panchayath as per cheque cheque No.546240 dated 11.6.2004 the claim if any is to be deems to have been barred by time. Since the complainant’s residence is more than 250 meters from the main line of the water supply scheme he may have to take the service line at his cost to his house. Hence seeks dismissal.
3. In support of the above complainant Mr. Ramesh Anchan filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked Ex.C1 to C18 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. Lokanatha (RW1) Panchayath Development Officer, Haleangadi Grama Panchayath and Mr. Ganesh (RW2) Panchayath Development Officer, Koikude Grama Panchayath also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on them.
In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of arguments. We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of opposite parties. Our findings on the points are as under are as follows:
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Affirmative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i): In this case as seen from the order sheet dated 4.1.2013 cheque for Rs.1500/- was received by learned counsel Sri.BNK for complainant.
2. As seen from the Ex.C1 the receipt issued by Haleyangadi Gram Panchayat for water supply and Rajiv Gandhi committee the amount of Rs.1500/- received as donation for Rajiv Gandhi drinking water supply committee Halenyangadi exact words are ರಾಜೀವ್ ಗಾಂಧಿ ಕುಡಿಯುವ ನೀರಿನ ದೇಣಿಗೆ ಸಮಿತಿ ಹಳೆಯಂಗಡಿ. The objection raised by opposite party No.1 is that the residence of complainant does not come within the limits of Haleyangadi Gram Panchayat to pay but of Kemral Grama Panchayat, Kemral. He also mentioned that the sum of Rs. 1,000/ collected from him on 9.3.2001 the amount of Rs. 1,000/ is paid complainant was transferred to opposite party No.2 by opposite party No.1. Ex.C2 is copy of the receipt for Rs.1,000/ issued by Kemral Grama Panchayat, Kemral. In fact the written version of opposite party No.2 mainly admits the location of complainant’s house as within the limits of opposite party No.2 Panchayath only. Hence considering this and that the amount of Rs.1,500/ was already refunded to complainant as mentioned above the complaint as to be treated as a consumer and the opposite party No.2 as service provider and not the opposite party No.1. In fact, complainant in his reply to the interrogatories question No.6, 7 answered his residence is within the limits of opposite party No.2’s Panchayath. Hence to that extent only we answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative only against in respect of opposite party No.2 as opposite party No.1 has not provided the water supply to complainant’s house.
POINTS No.(ii): The only ground urged by opposite party No.2 is that the location of the house of residence of the complainant is in the periphery and if the complainant bears the cost of the service line with his own cost till his house water supply will be provided. When this is read with the Ex.C13 wherein another resident G A Burnard of Haleyangadi gave an undertaking to pay the contribution of this Rs.1500/ and in other willing to expences from the water mains the pipe line to give his residence, the complainant cannot avoid in our view to meet such expenditure. As such it is clear that opposite party No.2 despite receiving the Rs.1,000/ at Ex.C2 though not the amount of Rs.1,500/ mentioned at Ex.C1 in our view is liable to provide water connection to the residence of complainant mentioned in the complaint and not providing it so for amounts to deficiency in service by opposite party No.2. Hence we answer point No.2 in the affirmative against opposite party No.2 only.
2. In respect of the liabilities subject to complainant providing the required expenditure to the pipe line of his residence from the mains and of opposite party No.2 providing the water supply the complaint is liable to be allowed. In respect of compensation is concerned, complainant’s claim, Ex.C16 the list of 633 residence to whom water supply is provided by opposite party No.1 but it is of Haleyangadi Grama Panchayath. Considering that opposite party No.2 and to specific assertion that the residence of complainant comes within the periphery of opposite party No.2 Grama Panchayath is a fit case to direct opposite party No.2 considering the delay from 2001 i.e. the date of Ex.C2 to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to complainant.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order
ORDER
The complaint is allowed against opposite party No.2 only. Opposite party No.2 is directed to provide drinking water supply to complainant’s residential address mentioned in the complaint subject to complainant meeting the expenditure from the main water line till the complainant s residence within 30 days from the date of this order. Opposite party No.2 shall also pay Rs.20,000/ (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation to complainant.
2. Complaint against opposite party No.1 is dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 19th January 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
MEMBER
(SMT. SHARADAMMA H.G)
D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Ramesh Anchan
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: 07.09.2004: Receipt bearing No.146145 (original)
Ex.C2: 09.03.2011: Second demand receipt No.092132
Ex.C3: 31.12.2011: Letter from Taluk Panchayath Mangalore (copy)
Ex.C4: 17.05.2012: Letter from D.K Panchayath Mangalore
Ex.C5: 13.07.2012: Advocates Notice (o/copy)
Ex.C6: : Postal Receipt (original)
Ex.C7: : Postal acknowledgement (original)
Ex.C8: 08.08.2012: Advocates 2nd Notice (o/copy)
Ex.C9: 31.07.2012: Reply Notice (copy)
Ex.C10:13.12.2011: Letter by the complainant addressed to E.O. Taluk Panchayath Mangalore 01 (o/copy)
Ex.C11:14.12.2011: Postal receipt (original)
Ex.C12:17.12.2011: Postal acknowledgement (original)
Ex.C13:05.05.2009: Copy of the application filed by One Rev. G.A. Bernard to the OP for water connection (certified copy)
Ex.C14:30.06.2012: No objection letter issued by Panchayath Development officer Haleangady to Sayyed Aslam (certified copy) Ex.C15:09.01.2012: Reply by the Halengady Grama Panchayath to the complainant reply under RTI (certified copy)
Ex.C16: : Certified copy of the entire list of consumers under Haleangady Grama water supply plan with date of water connection (cc)
Ex.C17: : Details of Sri.Rajeev Gandhi drinking water Scheme of Govt. Of Karnataka
Ex.C18: 14.05.2012: Letter by Taluk Panchayath Mangalore
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 Mr. Lokanatha, Panchayath Development Officer, Haleangadi Grama Panchayath
RW2 Mr. Ganesh Panchayath Development Officer, Koikude Grama Panchayath
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 19.01.2017 PRESIDENT
