IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/144/2014
Date of Filing: 07.11.17 Date of Final Order: 27.12.18
Complainant: 1.a) Sujata Addhya,
W/O Late Atul Kr. Addhya
b) Sumana Addhya,
D/O Late Atul Kr. Addhya
32,Daihatta Road, PO-Khagra,
PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin-742103
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Board of Councillors,
Berhampore Municipality
represented by the Chairman,
PO&PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin-742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri.Siddhartha Sankar Dhar
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri.Subhanjan Sengupta
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Sujata Addhya & Others(here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against the Board of Councilors(here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The brief fact of the case is as such:
The original Complainant was the owner of inherited property at Daihatta having its holding number is 32 and as the Complainant is deceased same is substituted by his two legal heirs. Previously there was water connection in these premises. So, the water connection has been converted into the name of original complainant since deceased and the holding has also been mutated in the name of the Complainant after observing due formality.
The complainant as a owner of the said holding no 32 paid water charges amounting Rs 120/- on 14/08/2014 for period April 2014 to March 2015 on receiving the due receipt issued by the O.P. But on 26.08.14 without any reason the O.P. disconnected the water connection and the Complainant informed the matter to O.P in writing and also send reminder on 19.09.14. But yield no result. So, the Complainant filed the instant case before this Forum for appropriate relief.
O.P. filed W/V contending inter alia that the present case is filed to harass the O.P. and it is barred by limitation and false, fabricated and as the two successors of original owner of holding No.32 are claiming the water connection so it was suggested that out of amount which one has to deposit for water connection 50% would be given by one Samit Kumar Addhya to the present petition and the present petitioner would take a new water connection separately or vice versa. This OP in the W/V also stated that if the present petitioner brings a no objection form Samit Kumar Addhya then it would be easier for this OP to give the present petitioner a fresh water connection. So, denying deficiency in service, the OP prays for dismissal of the case.
Now the question arises whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reason
Admittedly the petitioners (substituted) are the owner of the holding No.32.
It is also evident that there was a water connection in the premises No.32 and the property transfer fees of Rs.1000/- has been deposited by the complainant on 18.09.13 and receipt voucher was issued by the O.P. It is also viewed from the record that Complainant (original) also paid the levy of fee for supply of water on account of water charges from April,2014 to March,2015 on 14.08.18.
But suddenly on 26.08.14 without showing any reason the OP disconnected the water connection. After making complaint before the OP on 27.08.14 and reminder on 19.09.14 and on several visits OP has not given the proper reason for such disconnection.
Though OP in the written version stated that 50% charges should be given by one co-sharer to the present petitioner or vice-versa for new connection. But we find no justification for providing such suggestion by the OP. It is also evident from the record that the complaint has filled the case within statutory period provided by the Act so the question of limitation does not arise.I t is also stated in W/V that no objection from one co-sharer namely Samit Kumar Addhya is required but no such required letter or documents has been filed before us for consideration.
Considering facts and circumstances of the case and documents filed before us and the arguments advanced by the Ld. Advocates of the respective parties we are of the opinion that without showing any reason O.P disconnected the water connection in the premises No.32. Here lies the deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. for disconnecting the existing water-connection in the premises no 32 after receiving the water supply charge from the complainant as the O.P is the service provider and the complainant is the consumer. So, we are of the opinion that the Complainant is entitled to get relief.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 07.11.17 and admitted on 20.11.14. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.
In the result, the Consumer case succeeds.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/144/2014 is hereby allowed on contest against the OP with a cost of Rs.2000/-.
OP is directed to provide water connection on the premises No.32.
OP is further directed to pay Rs 2000/- to the Complainant for harassment and mental pain.
All the above mentioned order by complied within one month from the date of this order.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member.
Member President.
