IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/133/2010
Date of Filing: 24.11.2010. Date of Final Order: 29.08.2016.
Complainant : Brahma Mohan Ghosh, S/O Bhaja Krishna Ghosh, Vill. Udayjole,
P.O. Palsonda More, P.S. Nabagram, Dist. Murshidabad.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Block Development Officer, Nabagram, P.O. Nabagram, Dist. Murshidabad.
2. Executive Engineer (AI), Berhampore, AI Division.
3. Asstt. Engineer (AI), Raghunathganj (AI) Sub-division.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya….................... President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for compensation of Rs.64, 000/- for loss of Aman Paddy gown in the land of the complainant.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant earns his livelihood by cultivation of his 264 acres of land of mouza-Jarulia from deep tube-well No. Jarulia 500/M at water rent of Rs. 539/- . The complainant paid Rs.539/- towards water rent against receipt but the OP did not supply water to the said land where Aman paddy was grown by the complainant and the same was dried up for non-supply of water and for that suffered loss of Rs. 64,000/- . The OP did not compensate the said loss in spite of demand. Hence, the instant complaint case.
The written version filed by the OP No. 1, in brief, is that the operator was asked for a report for the alleged non-supply of water to the land of the complainant. The operator submitted a report on 19.10.2010 wherein the said operator has categorically denied the allegation. He stated that water was supplied to the land of the petitioner. In spite of repeated requests the complainant refused to sign the log book which is effective proof of supply of water. The Operator also drew the attention of the DTW committee. He also reported that he has complied the order of Hon’ble High Court. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the complainant and for that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant written version.
The written version filed by the OP No.3 in brief, is that the OP No.3 is responsible for drilling, installation, maintenance and repair works of the 500 Jarulia Tubewll which was implemented by the W.R.I.D. Department. At the relevant point of time there was no complain about the said Tubewell and there was supply of water on the properties as mentioned in the petition as well as over the other properties. The allegations regarding water supply are not true. This Opposite Party has or had no deficiency of service. There are/were no relationship of consumer between the complainant and this OP. The complainant has not suffered any loss. There was no deficiency in service and for that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been framed for the disposal of the case.
Points for decision.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in its present form and law?
- Whether the complainant has locus standi to file the present case
- Whether the complainant is a consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 5.
All the points are taken up together for our convenience.
This complaint case is praying for compensation of Rs.64, 000/- for loss of Aman Paddy produced by the complainant for non-supply of water inspite of depositing fee for such water supply as per order of Hon’ble High Court.
On the other hand, the OP’s case is that as per operator’s report, he supplied water but the complainant did not sign the log book for such supply. There is no deficiency in service and there was no such loss and for that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant OP’s case.
To prove the case, the complainant has adduced his evidence –on-affidavit and filed the relevant documents in support of his case including one original receipt No. DDD-453568 dt. 28.7.10 for Rs.539/- towards water rate realized and a petition dated 6.11.10n to B.D.O. Nabagram claiming compensation of Rs.64,000/- for loss of crop for non-supply of water and Xerox copy of writ petition of W.P No. 32115 (W of 2008) and order of Hon’ble High Court Order No. 98 dt 22.5.09.
On the other hand, the OP has adduced relevant documents by firisti in support of his case including BDO’s report and report of the concerned operator No. 500/M of Jarulia dt. 19.10.10 and another mass petition dt. 26.10.10 against supply of water to the complainant.
The complainant has also filed a Xerox copy of a letter of the said operator dt. 16.7.10 to the Jalkar Committee stating that some bodies are resisting supply of water to the land of the complainant but he has ordered the night guard to supply water and requested them to see that no problem is cropped up for supply of the same.
From the report of the Operator dt. 19.10.10 it appears that they supplied water to the land of the complainant when there’re the complainant refused to sign the log book but the same is proved by the mass petition dt. 26.10.10 that the operator supplied water to the complainant.
Further, we find that the complainant has not adduced any iota of evidence as to damage of Rs.64,000/- due to loss of Aman Paddy produced by him.
During hearing argument the Ld. lawyer for the OP has advanced argument that this case is barred by the law of limitation and also barred by the principle of res-judicata and this Forum has no jurisdiction to execute the order of Hon’ble High Court .
On the other hand, Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has advanced argument that Hon’ble High Court directed the complainant to move before the Forum for getting water.
In this regard, we are of the view that this case is not for execution of the order of Hon’ble High Court, rather this case is simply for deficiency in service and for compensation for damages.
This case has been filed for non-supply of water instead of depositing fee for water supply on 28.7.10 supported by original receipt and the case was filed on 24.11.19 and thus there is no question of barred by the law of limitation.
Regarding, the objection as to bar by res judicata we are of view that in this case there is no question on the point of entitlement of water supply which has been decided by the Hon’ble High Court and thus, we can safely conclude that this case is not barred by the principle of resjudicata.
On the basis of above discussions we find that all the above three points raised by the Ld. lawyer for the OP has no legs to stand upon.
Be that as it may, in this case we are to decide whether there is deficiency in service as to supply of water and for non-supply of the same he suffered damages amounting to Rs.64,000/- .
Considering the materials on record filed by both the parties including the evidence supported by affidavit as discussed earlier in detail we have no other alternative but to conclude that there was supply of water to the land of the complainant and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and also the complainant has failed to prove any damages as claimed and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief . Accordingly, the complaint be dismissed.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 133/2010 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest.
There will be no order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
Member Member President
