BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 14/2013.
THIS THE 16th DAY OF AUGUST 2013.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Prakash Kumar B.A. LLB. PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER *****
COMPLAINANT :- Krishnacharya Joshi S/o. Late Tirumalacharya,
Age: 69 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. H.No.
14-5-401 Karadigudda Road, Manvi, District
Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- Chief Officer, Town Municipal Corporation,
Manvi, Dist: Raichur.
Date of institution :- 08-02-13.
Date of disposal :- 16-08-13.
Complainant represented by Sri. K. Srinivas Rao, Advocate.
Opposite represented by Sri. Amaresh Swamy Uppalmath, Advocate.
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
ORDER
By Sri. Gururaj, Member:-
The complaint is filed by the complainant against the Respondent U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, the complainant has availed service of water supply to his house bearing Mpl.No. 14-5-401 situated in Ward No-1 Karadigudda Road, Manvi from Respondent’s Corporation on payment of water tax every month from 24-03-2001. That in the month of October-2010 the said water supply was erratic and intermittent as a result of which he was forced to fetch water from the bore-wells situated in the near by fields and begging neighbours for a few pots of water to fulfill his domestic need. The complainant gave written complaints to the Respondent on 20-10-2010, 08-11-2010. Apart from that he personally met the then President, Manager and Chief Officer on 15-10-2010, 01-11-2010, 05-11-2010, 07-11-2010 and 12-11-2010 respectively. But there was no remedial action from Respondent. An appeal was also made to the Deputy Commissioner Raichur on 28-10-2010 for directing Respondent to do the needful. But inspite of all these efforts there was no proper action taken and was further aggravated. From January-2011 onwards water supply to the complainant’s house was totally seized all though water supply in the taps nearby main pipes line was normal. The complainant again approached the Manager on 05-03-2011 and the President TMC Manvi on 07-03-2011. Even in the subsequent dates also lot of efforts have been made but there was no fruitful results came out of it. It is the further case of the complainant that, in order to avail water service and work out his complaint before the Respondent’s Corporation expressed his deep concern over scarcity of water through local newspapers i.e, Prajaprapancha dt. 22-03-2012 and Suddi Moola dt. 13-12-2012. But all his efforts went in vain. Finally he moved an application on 01-04-2011 before the then Chief Officer stating that complaint will not be able to pay water tax from April-2011 till the water supply was restored to the house. But no fruitful results came out. On 10-11-2012 the workers of the TMC came and cleaned the main pipe line and removed waste materials from the pipe of the complainant’s house and little quantity of water started to flow from 12-11-2012. Further it is the case of the complainant that, the complainant promptly and honestly paid water tax from November-2012 but Chief Officer insisted for paying dues from April-2011 onwards. The complainant brought to the notice of Chief Officer about non supply of water from October-2010. It was also informed to the Chief Officer that the non payment of water tax was for non supply of water in the year 2007. But the Chief Officer of Respondent Corporation refused to permit the complainant to pay the tax from November-2012 and also insisted to pay the tax from April-2011 to November-2012 and also harassed the complainant by stating that the tap connection will be disconnected and auction sale of the house will be conducted to recover water tax from April-2011. It is the case of the complainant that, there was no water supply for the last 1- ½ years because of deficiency in service and negligence by the Respondent despite several complaints in writing and verbal. As a result complainant was put to great hardship. Hence present complaint has been filed for the reliefs prayed under the column.
3. Though the Respondent appeared through his counsel he has not filed written version or evidence to prove his case.
4. Heard the arguments on the complainant’s side and perused the records. The points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proved that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent as alleged?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed in his complaint?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the affirmative
(2) Partly in the affirmative.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
6. To prove the allegations made against the opposite party affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed. It was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 are marked.
7. As per the Ex.P-1 the complainant has availed the water supply to his house on 24-03-2001 as contended in the complaint. The Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-6 speaks about the complaint regarding non supply of water to the house of complainant from the Respondent’s Corporation. The Ex.P-7 is the legal notice issued by the complainant to the Respondent Corporation for to request to accept the water tax from November-2012 instead of April 2011.
8. We have noticed that, there was no reply from the Respondent Corporation even from the date of first complaint lodged on 28-10-2010 regarding non supply of water to the complainant’s house. Further there is also no proper response from the Respondent Corporation even the matter was published in the Newspapers on 21-02-2012, 12-03-2012 as per Ex.P-5 & Ex.P-6. Even though the notice was served upon the Respondent by this Forum the Respondent has not taken any pain to give reply to the allegations made by the complainant, by filing written version or evidence. This act of the Respondent Corporation clearly goes to show that, has totally neglected the bonafide demand of its consumer and thereby caused deficiency in service. Further it also clearly speaks about the non supply of water to the consumer/complainant as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. Under such circumstances, demand to make the payment of tax during the period from January-2011 to November-2012 is nothing but an illegal demand which the complainant is not liable to pay the same. The complainant through his legal notice dt. 03-12-2012 rightly questioned about the demand made by the Respondent Corporation regarding payment of tax from April-2011 to November-2012. Though the notice was served upon Respondent there was no reply or rejection of the demand made by the complainant. There is no piece of evidence or reason to show that why the Respondent Corporation had kept mum even after service of the notice from the Forum. This attitude of the Respondent Corporation once again clearly goes to show that, it is totally negligent and irresponsible regarding its service to the consumer/complainant. Under such circumstances, we believe that there is no wrong in saying that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent and the claim made for to make the payment of water tax for the period from Aril-2011 to November-2012 is illegal and uncalled for. As such, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service by the Respondent Corporation, Hence, we answered Point No-1 accordingly
POINT NO.2
8. As regards to the claim of the complainant is concerned, the complainant in his complaint has sought award and damages from Respondent Corporation and permission to pay water tax from April-2011 to October-2012 for an amount of Rs. 810/-. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that, what is the total tax demanded by the Respondent Corporation for the period of April-2011 to October-2012. However the Respondent has also kept silent all along from the date of first complaint made by the complainant to the Respondent Corporation to till the date of filing of this present complaint and even subsequent dates. Hence, we have considered the claim of the complainant regarding payment of tax for the period of April-2011 to October-2012 as Rs. 810/- and he is exempted from making the payment of the same. The Respondent Corporation is hereby directed not to collect the same. As regards to the damages and award is concerned, the complainant is entitled for to get an amount of Rs. 3,000/- under the head of deficiency in service and Rs. 2,000/- towards the cost of litigation. Accordingly we answered Point No-2
POINT NO.3:-
9. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant is exempted from the payment of tax for the period of April-2011 to October-2012 to the Respondent’s Corporation
Complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the Respondent’s Corporation towards deficiency in service with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of this order.
Respondent is given one month time from the date of this order for making payment of the above said amount.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 16-08-13)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Prakash Kumar,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
