F.A.No.395/2009 against  C.C.No.165/2008, DISTRICT FORUM, Kurnool.       

Between:

S.Krishna , S/o.late S.Sankarappa,

H.No.45/24/R54-20A, Sri Krishna Colony,

Ashok Nagar, Kurnool-3.                                …Appellant/

                                                                   Complainant

       And

1.The Commissioner,

   Municipal Corporation,

    H.S.No.1134, Kurnool-4.

2. The S.E.Engineering Section,

     Municipal Corporation ,

     H.S.No.1134, Kurnool-4.

3. Assistant Incharge of Citizen Service Centre,

    Kurnool Municipal Corporation,

    H.S.No.1134, Kurnool-4.                             … Respondents/

                                                                      Opp.parties  

Counsel for the Appellant         :      M/s. M.Hari Babu

Counsel for the Respondents    :      M/s.A.Sreedhar 

 QUORUM:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

                                SMT.M.SHREESHA,  HON’BLE MEMBER,

                                                AND

                SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO,HON’BLE MEMBER 

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH  DAY OF AUGUST,

                  TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.

Oral Order :(per  Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
                                                ****

Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.165/08 on the file of District Forum, Kurnool, the complainant preferred this appeal. 

        The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant applied for water tap connection to his house on 29.5.2006 and obtained a DD for Rs.1210/-.  He was given a receipt by the assistant of the service centre,  Municipal Corporation, Kurnool and they sanctioned a tap on 7.2.08 and the tap was fixed on 12.2.2008.  As per the conditions laid down in the receipt the opp.parties should fix the tap within 30 days   and should compensate for the period if there is a default by the opp.parties at Rs.50/- per day. In the instant case there is a delay  of 582 days in providing the tap connection and therefore the complainant seeks for compensation of Rs.29,100/- i.e. 582 days x Rs.50/- per day.  The complainant got issued legal notice on 29.2.08 seeking compensation and costs  together  with payment of Rs.29,100/-

        Opposite party no.1 filed written version stating that the complainant applied for tap connection and paid Rs.1210/- vide DD under ‘Below Poverty Level’ i.e. for people who possess white ration card and yearly income is less than Rs.28,000/-.  The complainant did not submit white ration card with his correct address and door number and only on 1.2.2008 he submitted a notarized affidavit that he was residing as tenant in door no.41/524-B , Kothapeta and now she has shifted to his own residence bearing door no.45/24-R-54-20 A, Srikrishna Colony. The affidavit was attested on 20.1.2008 and therefore the delay in giving the tap connection is not due to  the negligent attitude of opp.party no.1. The time factor is not applicable for those who applied for water tap connection under BPL Scheme. Moreover the complainant’s application number is 2849 and the connection is given as per seniority and there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.

        The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A6 and B1  to B10 dismissed the complaint .

        Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred this appeal.      

        The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant contended that  the water service connection has to be provided based on the Ration Card (white ration card ) under BPL Scheme but there is no such mention in the application forms marked as Exs.A1,A2,and A4 . G.O.Ms.158 and 303 do not apply to the complainant but   only  to General and OYT persons. The complainant states that he informed about  newly reconstructed house by applying permission to the opposite parties and also mentioned Municipal Tax Assessment  but  the forms did not mention that the complainant should have White Ration Card.

A brief  perusal of the record shows that  Ex.A1 is the application for Water Tap Connection dt.29.5.06, the payment being Rs.1210/- and the address mentioned in the Application Form is 45/24 R-54-20 A   and the assessment number  is 1016059248. The complainant relies on Ex.A2 wherein it is mentioned under General/OYT Category the tap connection is to be given within 30 days/10 respectively, on default payment of Rs.50/- per day will be paid as compensation.     Ex.A4 is the Connection Order given by Kurnool Town Municipality    and the A.E. has endorsed on this exhibit that the connection is under BPL Scheme. Ex.A5 is the legal notice got issued by the complainant  and Ex.A6 is the letter issued by the opposite party stating that the complainant’s connection has been taken under ‘Below Poverty Line’ connection for which Rs.1200/- was taken whereas the payment is Rs.6000/- for connection under General Category and Rs.10,500/- under OYT.  Ex.B5 is the notarized affidavit given by the complainant dt.20.1.08 states that the complainant shifted his residence  to 45/24-R-54-20A.  The main contention of the complainant is that his      connection was given after two years  with delay of 582 days and he is entitled to Rs.50/- per day as per form III Ex.A2.  But a brief perusal of Ex.A2 shows that this default clause of Rs.50/- per day is applicable only to General Category and OYT Category whereas the complainant paid this amount of Rs.1210/- under ‘Below Poverty Level’ (BPL) Scheme  and Ex.B9 dt.3.8.2004 which is G.O.Ms.no.303 clearly specifies the different rates for different categories and the time period  to give the water tap connection is specified only for General Category and OYT Category as evidenced under Ex.B10 dt.25.1.2001. When there is no time limit prescribed for water tap connection for ‘Below Poverty Line” Scheme for which the complainant applied and also in the light of the fact that  his application under BPS Scheme is 2849 and his connection was given as per seniority, we do not see any substantial reasons to construe any act of deficiency on behalf of the opp.parties .

In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed  and  consequently the complaint is also  dismissed . No costs.

PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                                                                        MEMBER

Pm*                                                                                                                  DT. 11.8.2011