BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE                        

Dated this the 7^th January 2017

PRESENT

  SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

   SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                 : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.123/2014

(Admitted on 9.04.2014)

Mrs. Assis Pinto,

W/o Charls Pinto,

Aged 60 Years,

Represented by GPA Holder, Son

John Pinto,

S/o Charls Pinto,

R/at Naithadi House,

 Kuria Village,

Puttur Tq, D.K.

                                                     ….. COMPLAINANTS

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri SD)

VERSUS

1. Secretary

    Mundoor Grama Panchayath,

    Mudoor Post, Puttur Taluk.

2. Panchayath Development Officer,

    Mundoor Grama Panchayath,

    Mudoor Post, Puttur Taluk.

                                                              ….....OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite parties No.1 & No.2: Smt. MNA)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaints filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the same complainant against same opposite parties alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

     The complainant claims she is resident of D. No. 1.17 and subscriber to opposite parties drinking water connection sanctioned on 02.09.2006 by paying Rs.500/ to the water connection given under Rajeev Gandhi National Drinking Water programme.  Even though the complainant was regularly paying the water charges in May 2013 without any intimation or notice to complainant the water connection was discontinued.  Contending that the opposite parties not followed procedures made down under Grama Panchayath Act before disconnecting even though complainant was residing in the given address claims deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties who are duty bound to restore the water connection.  Hence seeks the relief as claimed.

II.    Opposite party No.2 filed written version contending the complainant’s case is false, frivolous, vexatious and liable to be dismissed with cost under section 26 of the C P Act as he is not necessary party. Opposite party No.1 is the present Secretary and opposite party No.2 is the Panchayat Development Officer and they are not personally liable for the relief claimed.   Gram Panchayat is mainly headed by the president.  The water connection given and that the complainant is the subscriber to the water connection given and paid Rs.500 to opposite party is admitted.   The claim of residence of complainant in the petition mentioned premises place D. No. 1.17 now 1.12A is disputed.  The complainant by misguiding the opposite party obtained the connection and is misusing the water provided under the Rajeev Gandhi National Drinking Water programme scheme for watering coconut garden. The opposite party along with panchayat President  and some members visited the spot and confirmed the house bearing D.No.1/17 was demolished and the complainant is not residing in that house.  As such the complainant is misusing the drinking water resolution was passed on 17.4.2011 to disconnect the water supply to D.No.1/17 after informing to complainant by Rajiv Gandhi water committee of the President and Members.  The opposite parties are not liable to pay any damage and compensation and there is no any deficiency of service.  The complainant is barred by limitation and this Forum has no jurisdiction to file the complaint.   Hence seeks dismissal.

2.   In support of the above complainant Mr. John Pinto filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents marked Ex.C1 to C14 detailed in the annexure.  On behalf of the opposite parties Mrs. Sujatha (RW1) PDO, Mundoor also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced documents marked Ex.R1 to R4 detailed in the annexure.

In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the other reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

      We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:         

               Point No. (i): Affirmative

              Point No. (ii): Negative

              Point No.(iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

IV.   POINTS No. (i):    Water connection was provided to D.No.1/17 of complainant by opposite party in 2006 and that it was disconnected on the ground that the water is being misused by complainant and there is no residence in the said property and water is used for irrigation of a coconut garden raised in the plot. This is however disputed by complainant.   The complainant being the consumer who admittedly was paying the charges and the opposite party is the service provider there is a live dispute between the parties.  Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative. 

POINTS No.(ii):  The claim of complainant is residing in the premises D. No 1/17 to which the water connection under Rajeev Gandhi National Drinking Water programme scheme (for short scheme) was provided in 2006.  As can we seen from the document produced by complainant in fact produced Ex.C1, C2, C3 being the series of bills for the payment of the water charges. If there is any residential building normally the occupant should have paid the property tax pertaining to the building should have been paid and the document should have produced by complainant. Ex.C4 is copy of the application filed under RTI before opposite parties.  And Ex.C5 is the copy of the reply furnished to the complainant.  As seen from Ex.C5 at Sl. No. 4 there is mention made that there was no residential house in the premises and the present address of Mrs. Assis Pinto i.e. the complainant herein was not known.  The notice was served. Ex.C6 is the copy of the resolution dated 17.4.2011 passed by opposite party as per which at Sl.No.4 has no building was found in the property and the water connection  was provided being lead to coconut trees the water connection was stopped. 

2.   As seen from 2 photographs at Ex.C11 by complainant’s shows existence of a small laterite stone wall tin sheet roofing building situated in the site the building appears to be new one.  Ex.R4 is 4 photos of the site of complainant with no residential building but only stack of some laterite stones.  These are of No 1.17 new 1.12A is not disputed by complainant.

3.     Complainant produced Ex. C13 and C14 two receipts C13 dated 8.7.2011 and C14 30.1.2014.  At Ex.C13 mentions the tax paid as building tax assessable for 3 years.  And Ex.C14 does not disclose that the nature of the amount of Rs. 67 paid except the amount of Rs.17 paid as tax on land and the other amount of Rs.50/ as to be presumed as building tax.  The resolution as per Ex.C11 passed by opposite party.  The building existing as seen from Ex.C11 shows in the photograph referred earlier appears completely new.  As such we are of the view that the claim made by opposite party that the water is being misused for growing coconut trees and not for person’s residing in the premises and as such the disconnection of water in our view is justified.  Hence we answer point No.2 in the negative.

POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order

ORDER

                       The complaint 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 6 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 7^th 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

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants:

CW1  Mr. John Pinto

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainants:

Ex.C1: 02.09.2006: Copy of the application given to the O.P with endorsement

Ex.C2: 02.09.2006: Copy of the advance receipt

Ex.C3: 30.01.2011: Copies of the water bill 

Ex.C4: 01.06.2013: Copy of the RTI application

Ex.C5: 20.09.2013: Copy of the reply issued by O.P for RTI application

Ex.C6: 17.04.2011: Copy of the resolution issued by O.P

Ex.C7: 30.05:2013: Copy of the letter issued by the O.P

Ex.C8: 10.12.2013: O/c of the Regd, Lawyer’s notice

Ex.C9: 28.12.2013: Reply of 2^nd O.P

Ex.C10:12.12.2013: Postal Acknowledgment of 1^st OP

Ex.C11:               : Original Photographs (2)

Ex.C12: 24.04.2013: Notarized copy of G.P.A

Ex.C13: 08.07.2011: House tax Receipt

Ex.C14: 30.1.2014: House tax Receipt

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1  Mrs. Sujatha, PDO, Mundoor

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Ex.R1: 10.10.2014: Letters issued by Arapu Village Panchayath

Ex.R2: 09.10.2014: Letter issued by Arapu Village Panchayath in  Respect of D.No.I 17A

Ex.R3: 28.12.2013: Reply Notice

Ex.R4:                  : Photographs (4 )

Dated: 07.01.2017                                    PRESIDENT