O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa, President <br /> <br /> Grievance of the complaint against the opposite party (hereinafter called as OP for short) in brief is that on 1-2-2007 he noticed that water supply made by OP to his house was being supplied was contemplated with drainage water and despite informing OP in this regard he did not take any action. That he also gave a complaint in this regard on 3-2-2010 and again on 6-2-2010 to the higher authority. On 13-3-2010 staff of OP came for enquiry near his house who suggested him to take water connection from southern side of his house and for which he agreed to bear all the required expenditure. That official also instructed his staff one Somesh and Krishna in this regard when he started digging for drawing water line from south one Narendrakumar went to spot and abused him in digging for drawing separate line. That he has paid Rs.6,500/- on 31-10-2006 and Rs.13,340/- on 21-8-1999 for Cauvery water supply but till date Cauvery water supply is not give to his house. Therefore he has prayed for direction to OP to draw water line to his house from southern direction and also to award costs of Rs.5,000/-. <br /> <br /> 2. OP who is duly served with the notice this complaint has remained absent is set exparte. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence reiterating what he has stated in his complaint, the complainant alongwith complaint has produced copies of few letters he had addressed commissioner of water supply board, to an engineer of OP and to other authorities. He has also produced a copy of receipt for having paid Rs.6500/- for getting water connection and also receipt for having paid of Rs.13,340/-. We have heard the complainant who is in person and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. On giving through the complaint allegations and affidavit evidence of the complainant, the complainant found to have mixed up several issues regarding water supply to his house and supply of contaminated water besides not giving Cauvery water supply to his house. <br /> <br /> 5. The complainant has contended that, he has paid two amounts to OP organization for supply of Cauvery water to his house, but he has not stated that whether Cauvery water supply is extended to KR Puram area or to area of his residence and despite payment made by him he has been denied of that facility. Therefore, on the basis of material placed before us, it is not possible to understand what the grievances of the complainant is with regard to supply or non supply of Cauvery water to his house. Then coming to the request of the complainant direct to OP to supply water to his house from southern direction is, it is gathered from contents of the complaint that there is already water supply to his house from public distribution system and that line was damaged at the time of metaling road and that had led to supply of contaminated water. Now it is not his case that the OP has not repaired the damaged line and even now he is getting contaminated water supply nor it is his case that because of the damaged pipe the existing line is cutoff and he is not getting water supply to his house. It is also not his case that water line to his house cannot be taken or given from any other direction to his house other than from southern direction and the OP is either delaying or refusing to draw water line from southern direction. We should bear in mind that it is for the OP from which direction water line is to be drawn and connection to be given to the consumers and it is for that executing authority to find out the feasible away and until the consumers or the complainant proves contrary or bias attitude of OP towards him and denial of service. Therefore, the complainant in our view is not entitled for such a direction to OP to give water connection to his house from southern side of his house. <br /> <br /> 6. Then coming to the second prayer of the complainant for awarding compensation of Rs.5,000/- for his suffering since two months is concerned, we find that the complainant has not made out or proved as how he has suffered and connection of which deficient service of OP, he has suffered. The complainant is therefore is not able to substantiate before us about specific deficiency in service of OP for awarding damages. Therefore, we find no merits in the complaint of the complainant and the same is liable to be dismissed, with the result, we pass the following: <br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> Complaint is dismissed. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 25th June 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Member Member President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />