Date of filing:-19/04/2016.

Date of Order:-24/08/2018.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No. 16 of 2016.

Dharma Kumar Meher, S/o- Bhutlu Meher, aged about 48(forty eight)years, Occupation-weaving, R/o-Baarpali, Sibaji Club Pada, P.o./P.s-Barpali, Dist-Bargarh ..... ..... ..... Complainant.

- V e r s u s -

Assistant Engineer, P.H.Section Barpali, P.o./P.s Barpali Dist-Bargarh.

..... ..... .... Opposite Party.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :- Sri B.K.Panda, Advocate with other Advocates.

For the Opposite Party :- Sri S.K.Naik, Associate Advocate, Bargarh.

-: P R E S E N T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).

Dt.24/08/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-

Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-

Brief Facts of the case ;-

The Complaint has been filed against the Opposite Party pertaining to the allegation of deficiencies of service with the following ground, that he being a resident of the village as mentioned in the cause title of the Complaint petition, applied for a service connection of water to his house situated on the holding No-2/753 with a key plan by paying an amount of Rs. 500/-(Rupees five hundred)only as requisite fees for the same vide Receipt No.L0978693, 3 WK No. L39148 on Dt.20.03.2015, and also obtained road cutting permission from the N.A.C, Barpali by paying necessary fees vide Receipt No.5201 Dt.08.04.2015. But his case is that even after observing all formalities the Opposite Party did not provide him with the same connection, so seeing no alternative approached the Collector, Bargarh in his grievance cell on Dt.08.06.2015 and in response to the query of the Collector he explained him that it is the responsibility of the Complainant to lay the house connection through Licensed Plumber and he being the supervising authority is to supervise only, and that in furtherance to his complaint after several approach there after the Opposite Party is not responding to his request to give him the said connection thereby causing deficiencies in rendering him service intentionally though he has given connection to other person of his locality, thus has filed the case with a prayer to compensate Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only towards non supply of water connection and for his mental agony Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only and in support of his case has relied on the following documents:-

1. Receipt of payments of Rs. 500/-(Rupees five hundred)only.

2. Road cutting fees.

3. Undertaking.

4. Xerox copy of BPL card.

5. Key plan.

Having gone through the materials available in the record and on hearing prima facie it seemed to be a genuine case hence admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Party and also in response he appeared before the Forum and filed his version wherein he has admitted the facts with regard to his application for the water supply to his house and also has admitted his grievance petition before the Collector and also has contended the facts of his reply as per the norms of the service connection rules that he is the supervising authority only but it is the responsibility of the Complainant to arrange an authorized contractor or a licensed holder plumber to lay the connection to his house, but his rival contention to the petition with regard to his claim accompanied with the key map and contended that the said key plan is being opposed by the co-villegers of the Complainant since he has encroached a measure portion of the public road and has constructed a latrine over there and also has further contended that the plan of municipality to give the connection through other way which is more feasible has been refused by the Complainant further more the Opposite Party has filed a sketch map of the spot where in he has specifically mentioned the road map from where it would be more feasible to give the said connection but the Complainant has denied the same also he has contended that earlier also for three time as per the plan of the Complainant attempt has been made to give the connection in presence of the police but the villagers are arrogant in objecting the way to which the Complainant chooses to take the same in as much as has suppressed many more facts of the dispute over the same purpose before the Forum and hence in such circumstances there is deficiencies in rendering service on his part hence is not liable for any action and has prayed for dismissal of the case. And in it’s support has relied on a map prepared by the authorized engineer for the purpose.

On perusal of the entire materials available in the record and on hearing of the counsels of the respective parties some points cropped up before us to properly adjudicate the case as hereunder .

1. Whether the case is maintainable in the eye of Law ?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief ?

    

While dealing with the point as to whether the case is maintainable in the eye of law, in this context having gone through vividly in to the materials available in the record and on hearing the Advocate for the Complainant and to the Complainant himself before the Forum it came to our notice that although the Complainant has applied for the connection of water supply to his residence against payments of the required fees but from the version of the Opposite Party it has been clearly seen that Opposite Party is bound by the norms of the law envisaged thereof and as per the provision he has gone in to the spot for three times and has tried to perform his duty to that effect but due to the local dispute of the Complainant with his co-villeger it has not been possible on their part to give the connection, and also to that effect the Complainant was directed by the Forum on Dt.04.12.2017 to arrange a licensed contractor for the purpose along with some other requirement but the Complainant did not adhered to nor complied with the same, further on Dt.27.07.2018 on personal appearance of the Complainant he was asked in presence of the Opposite Party in consultation with him, for some other alternative way to facilitate him with the said problem to which the Complainant bluntly denied, and at the same time he did not comply with the previous direction of the Forum, in view of such prevailing circumstances further to our observation the Complainant has not made party to the Executive Engineer of the district who is the Chief Authority of the concerned department of the district, so in his absence the present Opposite Party can not be held responsible alone in as much as the Opposite Party can not go beyond the water service rules as such in the prevailing circumstances, we are not inclined to appreciate the case in favor of the complainant hence our view is expressed against the Complainant.

Secondly while discussing the question as to whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief, in this context we have already discussed the matter in details in our foregoing paragraph and also opined against the Complainant. Now we are of the view that the Complainant is not entitled to any relief and hence the case of the Complainant is hereby dismissed against the Opposite Party being devoid of any merit.

And accordingly the same is pronounced in the Open Forum and the same is disposed off to-day i.e. on Dt.24.08.2018.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

 ( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)

                      P r e s i d e n t.

                                                                                     I agree,

                                                            ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)

                                                                          M e m b e r (W)