Before the District conusmers Forum:Kurnool

Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President

And

Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member

Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member

Monday 22^nd day of December, 2003

C.D.No.15 /2002

P.V.Chenna Reddy,

S/o. P.Hanumantha  Reddy,

R/o. Dinnedevarapadu Village,

Kurnool (M),

Kurnool Dist.                                              . . . Complainant represented by his

                                                                         Counsel Sri D.Ayyapu Reddy

-Vs-

1. The Sarpanch,

Dinnedevara padu (V),

Kallur Gram Pandhayat,

Kurnool Dist.

2. The Panchayat Secretary,

Dinnedevarapadu Village,

Kurnool (M), Dist.

3. The Panchayat Officer,

Office of the Mandal Development

Officer, Kurnool.

4. The Mandal Development Officer,

Kurnool Mandal,

Kurnool Dist.                            . . Opposite party 1 to 4 represented by

                                                      His counsel Sri T.Nagabhushanam Naidu

O R D E R

(As per Smt C.Preethi Member)

1.       This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act seeking a direction on the opposite party to provide tap connection services to the complainants house bearing door No.2132 of Dinnedevarapu Village, costs of the petition and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the exigencies of the case.

2.             The gist of the complaint of the complainant is that the complainant is the owner of the house bearing door No.2/32 in Kapa Veedhi of Dinnedevarapadu Village of Kurnool Mandal, the said house was acquired by the complainant in partition with his brothers P.Sreenivasa Reddy and Puroshotham Reddy. The opposite parties proposed to provide drinking water facilities to the houses on payment of RS.1,000/- per each house, as per the said proposal the complainants brother paid RS.1,000/- and tap connection was provided to the said house in the year 1986 and the said amount was collected on behalf of the opposite parties by one Sri S.Srinivasulu the then      bill collection of Dinnedevarapadu Village.  From that day on wards the complainant is provided with water supply from the opposite party No.1 and the complainant is entitled to get continuous water supply from the opposite party.  While such is so the present Sarpanch has some political differences with the complainant threatening the complainant to disconnect the tap connection without any reasons.  The records of (1) meeting book (2) cash book and (3) M.R. Book of the opposite parties clearly prove the payment of RS.1,000/- towards tap connection.  Thus the opposite party failed in providing services to the complainant and committed deficiency of service regarding supply of water and threatening to disconnect the same.

3.       In pursuance to the notice of this Forum of this case the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and filed its written version denying the complaint is neither just nor maintainable either in law or on facts.  Except those that are specifically admitted.  It is stated that the complainant has illegally taken tap connection without the permission of the Gram Panchayat of Dinnedevarapadu Village.  The opposite party No.2 after enquiries came to know that the tap connection to the complainant’s house is illegal and without the permission of Village Panchayat and then the opposite party No.2 asked the complainant to show permission of tap connection to his house, but the complainant did not produce the same and postponing it, on same pretext or the other.  It is further stated that complainant is not paying water tax for the said tap connection and the opposite party only demand that complainant to pay water tax to the Gram Panchayat.

4.       It is stated that there is no cause of action for the complainant to filed this case as the tap connection is not dis-connected the complainant is enjoying the illegal tap connection, and denies threatening the complainant to disconnect the same.  Hence there arises no deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties as the complainant is enjoying water supply to his house and there is no dis-connection of water supply, and the Forum has not jurisdiction to entertain this case as there is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties.  So the complainant is not entitled to any relefs sought in the complaint and prays for the dismissal of complaint with costs.

5.       The complainant in support of his case filed the following documents viz., (1) true copy of receipt No.4601 dt 29.1.1990 for RS.1,000/- issued to Puroshotham Reddy and (2) Bunch of 3 Challans as to the payment of water tax.  The complainant also relies on his sworn affidavit and three 3^rd party affidavit as evidence,  and got the above documents marked as Ex A.1 and A.2.  The opposite party No.2 filed his sworn in support of his case as evidence.

6.       Hence the point for consideration is that whether the complainant has made his case against the opposite parties deficiency of service and his entitleness to the reliegs sought:-

7.       It is the case of the complainant that he had paid RS.1, 000/- towards tap connection charges in the year 1990 vide exhibit Ex A.1 and he is entitled to continuous water supply from the opposite parties.  The only allegation is that the opposite parties are threatening the complainant to dis-connect the said tap connection if the permission to the said connection is not produced, the complainant brought on file Ex A.1 attested xerox copy of receipt in the name of P.Purosotham Reddy (complainant’s brother), paying RS.1, 000/- towards tap deposit connection and the said payment was made on 29.1.1990.  But the opposite party submits that till now the tap connection is not disconnected and denies of any threatening to the complainant for the said disconnection.  The amount in ExA.1 was said to have been  paid by the complainant’s brother towards tap connection deposit and the said amount was collected by the then bill collector S.Srinivasulu the said fact averred by the complainant in the complaint averment and sworn affidavit averments was not rebutted by the opposite party to doubt the bonafidies of the complainant.  The third party sworn affidavit of the then bill collection  S.Srinivasulu envisage that an amount of RS.1,000/- was paid towards tap connection charges by the complainants brother to his house and all the amounts received during that period for the year 1990 was entered into cash book, M.R.Book and meeting book maintained by Panchayat  Board.

8.          The complainant further relies on the third party sworn affidavit of K.Ranganath Ex.V.A.O, which envisages that the opposite party making a tom tom in the village to dis connect the tap connection if the original tap connection deposit receipt is not produced inspite of the fact of making the said payments the opposite party purposely harassing the complainant.  The sworn affidavit of Annakalla Pullanna who made tom tom in the village asking the villagers to produce the original tap connection deposit receipt before the Village Secretary failing which the tap connection will be disconnected and the said tom tom was made as per direction of Village Secretary Panchayat.   The opposite party alleges no cause of action to the complainant to file this case, and the complainant’s counsel in his arguments takes a mention that the cause of action had arouse to file this complaint.  When the Village servant Annkalla Pullanna made from tom in the said Village as mentioned in his sworn-affidavit.  The complainant alleges his cause of action on the opposite parties for threatening non supply of water to his house the opposite parties are obligated under the terms and conditions in between them, to provide is continuous water supply to complainants.

9.         From the above discussions  and in the light of ExA.1 and  non- rebuttal 3 third party sworn affidavits what appears is that the opposite parties are threatening the complainant that his tap connection will be dis connected if deposit receipt is not produce.  The ExA.1 is tap connection deposit receipt, hence there arises no disconnection to the tap connection.  But the prayer part of the complaint goes to show seeking a direction to provide water connection to the house of the complainant.  This prayer of the complainant cannot be granted as there is no dis-connection to the said tap connection and hence providing tap connection doesn’t arise.  It there is dis-connection then granting of the said relief would have been arisen.

10.     In the result of the above discussion the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties not to threaten the complainant for tap disconnection.

          Dictated to the Stenographer Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the Open Court, This the 22^nd day of December, 2003.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

                   Sd/-                                                                                                                                         Sd/-

          MEMBER                                                                                                                                  MEMBER