Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/140/2017

D.Kandhasamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chennai Metropolitan water Supply and sewerage Board Rep its Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

party in person

10 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  15.09.2017

                                                               Order pronounced on:  10.02.2020

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

MONDAY THE 10^th  DAY OF FEBRUARY  2020

 

C.C.NO.140/2017

 

D.Kandhasamy,

Senior Citizen aged 70 yrs,

Old No.126/2, New No.100,

P.V.Koil Street,

Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013.

 

                                                                                     …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1.Chennai Metropolitan Water supply and Sewerage Board,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

No.1, Pumping Station Road,

Chintadripet, Chennai – 600 002.

 

 

2.Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board,

Rep by its. Area Engineer Division.V,

Anna Park.1 M.C.Road,

Chennai – 600 021.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                         : Party in Person

 

Counsel for  opposite parties                      : Mr. G.Prakash

                                                                     

 

ORDER

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant’s house  is situated in the very small lane. At present complainant and his family are using the old sewerage tank and old drainage line system and it is existing for very long time and unable use since it is damaged and weakened. Therefore the  complainant decided to replace the above drainage system. In order to replace the same the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party’s Area Engineer  in the month of February 2016 at above Chennai address for installation of new sewerage tank and drainage/sewerage water connection in his residential premises.  The 2^nd opposite party charged a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards the connection charges.  On 22.07.2016 the same was paid through Canara Bank Branch at the 2^nd opposite party’s office premises. Even after the receipt of the above charges  both  the opposite parties have not executed drainage connection to the complainant’s residence. Due to lethargic attitude of the 2^nd opposite party the complainant gave a complaint to the 1^st opposite party for the same grievances. Both opposite parties neither executed sewerage water connection nor returned the above charges. Hence this complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY ADOPTED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is a resident of Old No.126/2, New No.100, P.V.Koil Street, Royapuram, Chennai – 13 and  has registered a sewer renewal application vide S.A.No.3580 on 22.07.2016. after having paid a renewal fees of Rs.7,500/-. The said application was forwarded to Area V Office for executing the renewal of existing sewer  work order on 29.07.2016 entrusting the work  to DAE 11 (now  designated DAE12)  and a copy was marked to Area Engineer 50 depot. The concerned officials have immediately inspected the complainant’s house and found that the house building is situated in a three feet  common pathway lane belonged to other co-owners living in the same address at No.126/1, 126/3 & 126/4. The existing sewer line inside the house property on the three feet common path lane is common to other co-owners. Therefore the complainant was informed to get written consent letter from other co-owners. The co-owners of the complainant have refused to give their consent letter to the complainant. The existing sewer line is laid on the common passage of three feet lane which belongs to four house owners including the complainant which is linked to main sewer of the board. The other house owners on the same pathway are not willing to renew the existing sewer line exclusively for the complainant’s house. Thus the complainant was asked to produce no objection certificate but not produced. Complainant blindly blamed the board officials without any truth.  The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant’s residence is situated in a small lane.  Since the family was unable to use the old sewerage system and in order to replace the existing system, the complainant  approached the 1^st opposite party  for the installation of new sewerage tank and connection and  also  paid to the 2^nd opposite party  a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards the connection charges on 22.07.2016 . Ex.A1 is the receipt for the payment in the name of the complainant. The allegation of the complainant is that even after the receipt of the payment the opposite parties  have not executed the drainage connection  where as complainant’s neighbour erected the sewerage tank which weakened the foundation and walls of the complainant’s house.  The electrical equipments are ruined and they suffered electrocution. Then again the complainant approached the opposite parties  for  the fresh sewerage connection and removal of the illegal action of the neighbor.  No action was taken by opposite parties.  Hence it amounts to deficiency in service and the complaint is being filed by the complainant.

          05. It is admitted by the opposite parties  that the complainant  had registered a sewerage renewal application  vide S.A. No.3580 on  22.07.2016  in the head office at Chinthadripet, Chennai -1 by paying the fees and the application is forwarded to Area –V office for execution. As per the contention of the opposite parties the work was entrusted to DAE –12.  During the inspection by the concerned officials, it was found that the house building of the complainant is situated in a three feet common pathway lane belonging to other co-owners. Therefore the complainant was informed to get no objection certificate to renew the sewer line which existed in the common pathway belonging to other co-owners and the complainant. Based on this when the complainant approached the co-owners there was no proper response from them  for which the complainant approached Royapuram  police is not denied by the complainant. And also based  on the letter submitted by the complainant dated 16.08.2016 to Area Engineer Depot 50, a written reply was given to the complainant dated 26.08.2016 vide Ex.B2 wherein the  position was explained and the complainant was asked to produce either no objection certificate from the co-owners or a letter of consent from them. The receipt of Ex.B2 letter and  the allegation of non-production of the required documents by the complainant is not denied by him.

                      06.  As contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties the circumstances proves that there is no co-operation between the co-owners and the complainant. The  board cannot interfere  in their personal dispute and the internal work is to be done at the cost and risk of the respective owners of the property. The complainant has not taken any steps to set right their grievances of the dispute between the co-owners in a civil court. The opposite parties are bound to give the connection only in the main road and the rule does not provide the board to intrude upon the properties of the respective owners and it mandates certain requirement as per section 56 of  the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1978.  There is also duty cast upon the complainant to relay pipe connection from their residence to main road and then  only opposite parties could effect connection in the main sewer lane. While so the complainant have not followed the procedure as directed by the opposite parties and also failed to do the duty and approached this forum with false representation against the opposite parties.  So far as the complaint against the opposite parties  is concerned this forum finds  no deficiency in service by opposite parties. It is not the case of the complainant that he has completed the formalities such as preliminary and basic requirement as directed by the opposite parties and then the opposite parties have not done their duty.  Per contra, the complainant sought for the refund based on the alleged non-compliance of the work as requested by him.   It is left to the complainant to approach the opposite parties for refund of the amount.  If they are not going to pursue the matter or else to follow up the procedure as explained by the opposite parties in writing and get the work done. Under such circumstances the complaint fails and is liable to be dismissed.

07. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties  have  not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.                  

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 10^th day of February 2020.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 22.07.2016                   Receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party

Ex.A2 dated 28.11.2016                   Letter from 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A3 dated 16.08.2016          Complaint to Managing Director, Metro water by the complainant

Ex.A4 dated 26.08.2016          Report by 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A5 dated 23.08.2018          RTI Act – Appeal report

Ex.A6 dated 29.11.2016          Paper news of metro water

Ex.A7 dated 25.07.2016          Application to Metro water and sewerage by complainant

Ex.A8 dated 30.07.2016          CSR issued by Washermenpet police station

                 & 13.03.2017

 

Ex.A9 dated NIL                     Photographs of the resident of complainant

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

Ex.B1 dated 29.07.2016                   Work Order issued by Area Engineer

 

Ex.B2 dated 29.11.2016                   Reply issued by Area Engineer for RTI

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT