Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/259/2023

The Secretary, Bearhatty Village Panchayat & 2 Others - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mrs. Nithiya Kannan, W/o S.Kannan - Opp.Party(s)

M/s A Arumugam

27 Jun 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  : PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R  VENKATESAPERUMAL          :    MEMBER

 

F.A. No.259 of 2023

(Against the Order passed in C.C. No.10/2021 dated 04.08.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., The Nilgiris)

 

Dated the 27^th day of June 2023

1. The Secretary,

Bearhatty Village Panchayat,

Bearhatty Village Barracks Post,

The Nilgiris – 643 231.

 

2. The President,

Bearhatty Village Panchayat,

Bearhatty Village Barracks Post,

The Nilgiris – 643 231.

 

3. The Block Development Officer,

Panchayat Union Coonnoor,

The Nilgiris – 643 102.                  .. Appellants / Opposite parties.

 

- Versus –

Mrs. Nithiya Kannan,

W/o. Mr. S. Kannan,

No.2/8, Bharathi Nagar,

Barracks Road,

The Nilgiris – 643 231.

 

Represented by:

The General Secretary,

The Nilgiris District Consumer Rights Association,

Hotel Mystique Inn,

Old Agraharam,

Udhagai,

The Nilgiris – 643 001.                      .. Respondent / Complainant.

 

Counsel for Appellants / Opposite parties :  M/s. A. Arumugam

 

Counsel for Respondent / Complainant    :  M/s. B. Praghan

       

                The Respondent as complainant has filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain directions.  The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order, allowing the complaint.  Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties 1 to 3 praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt. 04.08.2022 in C.C. No.10/2021.

 

                This petition came before us for hearing finally, today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels appearing for both parties, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.     The opposite parties 1 to 3 before the District Commission are the appellants herein.

2.     The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that she has availed water connection to her residence since August 2016.   The complainant’s husband Mr. S. Kannan after retirement from his service from Indian Army, submitted his grievance petition before the Collector of the Nilgiris on 10.12.2018.   After verifying the veracity of his petition, the 3^rd opposite party has decided to approve the repairing of his building roof.  After obtaining permission from the 3^rd opposite party on 03.01.2019, the complainant had constructed a house.  The complainant further stated that during February 2020, some persons along with the opposite parties 1 & 2 suddenly invaded her place and damaged the pipe lines without any reason and intimation.  The complainant reported the matter to the opposite parties as well as to the police department but there was no response.    Hence, the complainant sent a letter to the Collector, Nilgiris and after receipt of her petition, the 3^rd opposite party has given reply on 18.05.2020 stating that as per the Panchayat Union Junior Engineer’s Report, the complainant built the house without getting an approval or permission from the Bearhatty Village Panchayat.  But the contention of the said reply is not correct.   The complainant further stated that because of the disconnection of water connection her family had suffered a lot.  The complainant further stated that since the complainant had taken possession of the house property, without water amenity, they couldn’t enjoy such household right in the absence of water connection.  The act of the opposite parties had caused great mental agony to the complainant.   Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainants had filed a complaint before the District Commission to provide water service connection to the complainant’s house, to pay a sum of Rs.4,95,000/- as compensation for mental agony and mental distress and to pay cost to the complainant.

 3.    Though notice has been served on the opposite parties 1 to 3 they have not chosen to appear before the District Commission and hence, the opposite parties 1 to 3 was set exparte.  Consequently, the District Commission passed an ex-parte order directing the opposite parties to provide water service connection immediately to the complainant’s house and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation mental agony and distress and with cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of this order failing which, the said amount would carry interest at the rate of 12%.

4.     Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties 1 to 3 praying for setting aside the order and for a chance to contest the case on merits.

5.     Before this Commission, the counsel for the appellants / opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of them and that they have got valid defence and a fair chance of succeeding in the complaint.  Further, the appellant / opposite party submitted that the complaint itself do not fall under the purview of Consumer as defined under provision of act.  Therefore, he sought to set aside the order of the District Commission and prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

6.     When the case had come up before this Commission on 21.06.2023, after hearing the submission of the both parties, this Commission had felt that there is some force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellants /opposite parties and therefore, in order to give a chance to the opposite parties to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit.   However, considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite parties, in not appearing before the District Commission, we imposed a cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission on or before 26.06.2023.   Today, when the matter appeared in the list it was reported that the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with.    Hence, this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law.

 

In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, The Nilgiris in C.C. No.10/2021 dt.04.08.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, The Nilgiris for fresh disposal according to law and on merits after hearing both sides.

 Both parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, The Nilgiris on 27.07.2023 for further proceedings.  The appellants / opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to file Vakalath, Written Version, proof affidavit, written arguments and documents if any on the same day itself.

 The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint on merits within three months after hearing both parties as expeditiously as possible as per law.  

 Both parties shall abide by the order of the District Commission regarding the mandatory deposit already made by the appellants / opposite parties before this Commission.

 

 

 

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                       R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                                                                                         PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

KIR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/ June /2023