IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 308 to 313/09 DATED 25.11.2009<br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant in CC 308/09 Smt. Shubha Acchaiah,<br /> D.No.30, Vasu Badavane, <br /> Ramakrishna Nagara, (Dattagalli I Block), Mysore-570022.<br /> <br /> Complainant in CC 309/09 Guruprasad. I Nayak<br /> No.6, Mysore City Developers Badavane,<br /> Ramakrishna Nagara I Block, <br /> Mysore-570022.<br /> <br /> Complainant in CC 310/2009 H.V.Srinivasa,<br /> No.15, Mysore City Developers Pvt. Ltd. Layout, R.K.Nagara I Block,<br /> Mysore-570022.<br /> <br /> Complainant in CC 311/09 Smt.Nandini, No.17, M.C.D. Layout, Ramakrishnanagara I Block (Dattagalli), Mysore.<br /> <br /> Complainant in CC 312/09 Roshan Bati Nambiyar, No.22, Vasu Layout, Ramakrishnanagara I Block, Mysore-570022.<br /> <br /> Complainant in CC 313/09 Smt.Eshwari Jayaram Bhat, D.No.19, Vasu Layout, Ramakrishnanagara (Dattagalli) I Block, Mysore-570022.<br /> <br /> (By Sri Prasanna Murthy, Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties in 6 cases are same 1. Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation, Mysore.<br /> 2. Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri B.Doddaveeregowda, Advocate for O.P.1<br /> and Sri M.R.S.K. Advocate for O.P.2)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaints : 21.08.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 10.09.2009<br /> Date of order : 25.11.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding in all 6 cases : 2 MONTHS 15 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Though, the complainants are different, opposite parties are common. So also, the facts alleged in all the complaints, evidence and the contentions of the parties as well as question of law, being same or similar, by the common order, all the complaints are being disposed off.<br /> <br /> 2. In all the complaints, the complainants have sought a direction to the opposite parties to take steps for flow of drainage water and to create healthy atmosphere and to award damages of Rs.5,000/-. <br /> <br /> 3. In all the complaints, it is alleged that, the complainants purchased sites from Mysore City Developers, approved by the second opposite party and constructed house about four years back. The complainants are residing in the respective houses. Adjacent to the houses of the complainants, there are sites belonging to second opposite party. The second opposite party has dug a canal for flow of rain water. The work is incomplete. For completion of the work, it is being told that, land dispute is pending in the Court. The drainage water of Ramakrishna Nagara, Vasu Layout and MCD layout, stagnate in the rain water canal. On account of drain water flowing in the rain water canal and stagnation of the water. Due to mosquitoes and bad smell, health of the residents of the houses affected. In this regard, when complaints approached the second opposite party, they tell that, it pertains to first opposite party. Said area is part of ward No.16 of the first opposite party. The complainants are paying tax to the first opposite party. When the Vijaya Karnataka Daily Newspaper published news regarding the drain water, first opposite party had made temporary arrangement. But, there was no proper solution. During rainy season, more drain water is stagnated. In this regard, the complainants represented to the elected members, Deputy Commissioner, first and second opposite parties many times and some officers inspected the spot, but no relief. It is general public problem. As per the law, drain water cannot be allowed to flow outside. On account of such flow of drain water, health has been affected and the people are suffering with diseases. The first opposite party and the concern did not come forward to stop drain water. The complainants spend their own money and cleaned some times. In spite of repeated requests made by the complainants, there is no response from the opposite parties. Aged parents are residing in the houses. All the residents have suffered lot. The situation has disturbed the peace. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaints.<br /> <br /> 4. The first opposite party in the version, admitted that, the complainants are residing in Vasu Layout, which is recently included in 16th Ward. But, it is denied that, drain water of Ramakrishna Nagara, Vasu Layout, MCD Layout, is flowing in the rain water canal and is stagnating and thereby on account of mosquitoes, the health has been affected etc., It is stated, the fact that, the complainants are paying tax, is not important. It is contended that, what civic amenities were provided by second opposite party is being maintained by this opposite party. Some portion of the layout is down gradient. On account of recent heavy rain, additional water entered into drain and in the month of June and July 2009, the water had come out. Soon after coming to know of it, the matter was set right. Except the news appeared in the newspaper, entire layout drainage is proper. This opposite party is properly maintaining the drainage system. In reality, the drain water of the other layouts is not flowing on the ground or through the open drainage. There is no deficiency in providing civic amenities to the complainants. It is for the complainants to prove the allegations. It is stated, as alleged, if drain water flowing outside is true, in such case, it is for the complainants to prove deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. It is contended that, the complainants are not entitled for any reliefs. The complaints are not maintainable in law. It is for the complainants to prove the photos produce pertains to the spot in dispute. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaints.<br /> <br /> 5. The second opposite party though appeared through advocate before the Forum, has not filed any version.<br /> <br /> 6. To prove the facts alleged in the complaints, the respective complainants have filed their affidavits and produced certain documents, as well as photographs. On the other hand, for the first opposite party, Regional Officer by name Govindappa has filed has filed his affidavit and so also an additional affidavit. We have heard the arguments of the learned advocate for the complainants and the advocate for first opposite party. Though, no version and affidavit is filed for the second opposite party, we have also heard the learned advocate for second opposite party. We have perused the entire material on record.<br /> <br /> 7. Now, the points for our consideration are as under.<br /> 1. Whether the complainants have proved any deficiency in service on the part of both or either of the opposite parties and that they are entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 8. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 9. Point no. 1:- At the outset, the learned advocate for the first opposite party submitted that, the complaints are not maintainable in law. In this regard, he relied on the ruling reported in I (1994) CPJ page 99. The Hon’ble National Commission taking into consideration of the facts of that case that, the grievance of the complainant was that the Municipal Corporation to take immediate steps for increase of the pressure of the water supply, but he was paying only “property tax” to the Corporation, which was based on annual value and supply of the water was as per obligatory functions of the Corporation and hence, the payment of tax, cannot constitute payment of consideration for the hiring or availing of service and hence, complaint came to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 10. It is relevant to note that, in that case, the Corporation was supplying water as an obligatory function and the complainant was paying only property tax. Hence, it is clear that, no water cess or tax was paid by the complainant in that case and under the circumstances, it is held by the Hon’ble National Commission that, without consideration water was supplied. But, in the case on hand, all the complainants have paid not only the property tax, but various kind of tax or cess including SWM. Moreover, the first opposite party in the version has stated that, payment of the tax by the complainants is not important. Hence, we are of the opinion that, the ruling relied upon by the learned advocate is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.<br /> <br /> 11. The learned advocate with reference to the section 58 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act pointed out the obligatory functions of the Corporation, which includes the collection, removal, treatment and disposal of sewage and offensive matter and rubbish and preparation of compost manual from other sewage, as well as the construction maintenance and cleaning of drains and drainage works and public privacy, water closets, urinals and similar convenience. Thus, the learned advocate submits, as in the ruling relied upon by him, these are the obligatory functions of the Corporation and hence, the complaints are not maintainable. But, at the cost of repetition, firstly as noted above, the first opposite party is collecting various kinds of tax or cess from the complainants, but not only property tax. If, it was the contention of the first opposite party that, without collecting other kind of tax or cess as an obligatory functions, it is maintaining the drain etc., then it was different aspect. <br /> <br /> 12. However, on the other hand, the learned advocate for the complainants relied on recent ruling of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in II (2008) CPJ 354. In that case, the Ahamadbad Municipal Corporation was supplying contaminated drinking water. The Corporation failed to maintain drainage lines, resulting Jaundice epidemic. Several persons were affected. The complaints were dismissed, observing that same were in the nature of public interest litigation and not consumer dispute involved. The Hon’ble Apex Court had set aside the said order. Ultimately, the Hon’ble National Commission gave certain directions to the Municipal Corporation. In view of this recent decision, the contention of the first opposite party that, the complaints are not maintainable, cannot be accepted.<br /> <br /> 13. On page 874 of the book Commentary on the Consumer Protection Act, Third Edition by Dr.J.N.Barowalia, with reference to the judgement of the hon’ble Apex Court, it is mentioned that “On the question whether the local authorities or government bodies or statutory authorities are amenable to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it has been held by the Supreme Court in appeals under section 23 of the Act that the Act requires provider of service to be more objective and caretaking. It is still more in public services. When private undertakings are taken over by the Government or corporation are created to discharge what is otherwise State’s function, one of the inherent objectives of such social welfare measures is to provide better, efficient and cheaper services to the people. Any attempt, therefore, to exclude services offered by statutory or official bodies to the common man would be against the provisions of the Act and spirit behind it. It is indeed unfortunate that since enforcement of the Act, there is demand and even political pressure is built up to exclude one or the other class from operation of the Act. How ironical it is that official or semi-official bodies which insist on numerous benefits, which are otherwise available in private sector, succeed in bargaining for it on threat of strike mainly because of larger income accruing due to rise in number of consumers and not due to better and efficient functioning claim exclusion when it comes to accountability from operation of the Act….A Government or semi-government body or a local authority is as much amenable to the Consumer Protection Act as any other private body rendering similar service. Truly speaking it would be a service to the society if such bodies instead of claiming exclusion subject themselves to the Act and let their acts and omissions scrutinized as public accountability is necessary for healthy growth of society.” <br /> In the ruling reported in 2009 CTJ 605 Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that “Thus the law is that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities. Such authorities become liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office i.e., an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen. The Commission/Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to mala fide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine the amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of the law. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. It helps in curing social evil. It will hopefully result in improving the work culture and in changing the outlook of the officer/public servant. No authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. Matters which require immediate attention should not be allowed to linger on. The consumer must not be made to run from pillar to post. Where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non-exercise of power by an officer of the authority, the Commission/Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation.” <br /> Hence, the complaint is maintainable against the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> 14. The complainants have alleged that, they have constructed the residential house about four years back and residing therein. They have alleged that, canal or gutter constructed is not completed. Further, the complainants claim that several other layouts drain water flowing in to the said gutter and stagnates and on account of it, mosquitoes are breeding, and on account of bad odor, health of the residents is affected. The first opposite party in the version, has contended that, it is maintaining the drainage properly. Specifically, it is contended that, drain water of other layouts is not at all flowing on the ground or through the open gutter. In this regard, all the complainants in their affidavits have repeatedly narrated that the drain water is flowing through the open gutter and is stagnating and the water is stagnated there, because there is no further gutter or drainage since the work is incomplete. In this regard, for the complainants, news appeared in the newspapers is pointed out. Apart from it, for the complainants, photographs are produced. From the photographs, it is clear that, there is open gutter or channel, wherein drain water has been stagnated. Regarding the photographs, it is contended by the first opposite party that, it is for the complainants to prove the said photographs pertains to the particular spot. But, considering the entire evidence on record, particularly in view of the fact that the first opposite party has not specifically contended that said photographs does not pertaining to the spot in question, the claim of the complainants has to be believed. <br /> <br /> 15. An attempt is made by first opposite party to contend that, the layout in question has not been handed over to it by the second opposite party. But, as noted here before, at the beginning of the version in the first paragraph specifically it is admitted that, the complainants are residing in Vasu layout in ward No.16, which has been recently included in the Corporation. Further, in the affidavit in third paragraph, it is stated that, what civic amenities were there, when the second opposite party handed over the layout to the first opposite party, all of them are maintained by the Corporation without any fault. Hence, on oath, officer of the first opposite party has stated that, the layout in question has been handed over by the second opposite party to the Corporation. However, it appears, the first opposite party to escape from the liability, is contending that second opposite party has not at all handed over the layout in question and in this regard, additional affidavit is filed by the officer of the first opposite party. In this additional affidavit, it is stated that, in the version and the earlier affidavit, the fist opposite party stated that it is supplying water, electricity, street light and lifting of garbage and hence, he was under the impression that the layout has been handed over to first opposite party. But, on verification of the documents, it is found, the second opposite party has not handed over the said layout to the first opposite party. In this regard, the letter addressed to the advocate is enclosed. But, no other documents are produced. Even otherwise, it is stated by the witness for the first opposite party that, to the layout in question, the first opposite party Corporation is supplying water, electricity, street light and lifting the garbage of the entire layout. As noted here before, the complainants are paying the taxes and cess and hence, the first opposite party contending that layout has not been handed over to it, cannot avoid its duties towards the complainants.<br /> <br /> 16. Advocate for the complainants pointed out that, since for the last several years, the complainants approached the opposite parties through all means, but no response. When the cases were posted for arguments, considering the submissions made, we had requested the responsible officers of the opposite parties to make spot inspection and set right the things. But, no positive response came from the opposite parties. It shows, the attitude of the opposite parties towards the complainants or the citizens.<br /> <br /> 17. Second opposite party has not filed any version and there is no evidence on its behalf. Advocate appearing for the second opposite party, contending that second opposite party has handed over the layout to the first opposite party and hence, there is no liability on the part of second opposite party. As noted here before, it is the contention of the first opposite party that, it is maintaining the layout with the civic amenities, which were there at the time and handing over the layout to it by the second opposite party. Thus, it is clear that, the first opposite party is blaming the second opposite party and on the other hand, second opposite party blaiming the first opposite party. However, it is fact that, second opposite party has approved the layout that was formed by some developers. As could be seen from the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, it is mandatory on the part of the second opposite party that before approving the layout, it has to satisfy about all civic amenities and in case of failure by the developers, it has to carry out the work and when developer apply for permission to develop the layout, deposit will have to be taken and there are several other duties on the part of the second opposite party, which need not be narrated in detail. In the case on hand, from the facts on record, it is crystal clear that, gutter or drain is incomplete and the water cannot flow further and it stagnates at particular point. Firstly, it was the duty of the second opposite party before approval of the layout to consider all these aspects and secondly, as noted above, it is the duty of the first opposite party to see that no drain water flow in the open gutter or canal causing nuisance to the residents of the locality, having collected the taxes and cess.<br /> <br /> 18. One of the complainants under the Right to Information Act, has sought information as to where the drainage pipeline proceeds ahead. The information furnished by the first opposite party is that, the society which formed the layout has not furnished the map regarding drainage pipeline. Furnishing such a map if necessary, then in the absence of the same, at appropriate stage both opposite parties could have raised objections and could not have approved the plan and development works undertaken by the Society. At the same time, it is relevant to note that, the Superintendent Engineer of the second opposite party in the letter dated 17.01.2003, has certified that entire development work has been completed. If without such map, second opposite party has certified regarding completion of the work, then there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party also.<br /> <br /> 19. A letter dated 17.01.2003 from Superintendent Engineer of the second opposite party addressed to the President of the House Building Society is produced for the complainants as well as first opposite party. In this letter, it is stated, the Society has paid all the development charges to the second opposite party and the sites have been allotted. Also, it is stated, the garden, civic amenities area have been already entrusted to the second opposite party through relinquishment deed. From the letter of the second opposite party, which is of the year 2003, it is clear that, the Society which formed the layout, paid all development charges and also, done all development work, completely. <br /> <br /> 20. On the basis of the letter dated 04.02.2004 of the first opposite party addressed to the Secretary of the House Building Society, which formed the layout, it is argued by the learned advocate for the first opposite party that, the first opposite party informed no development work will be undertaken and during that five years period, the society has to undertake the works. Firstly, as could be seen from the letter of the second opposite party to the President of the Society noted in the above paragraph, it has been certified that entire development work has been completed. Hence, as mentioned in the letter of the first opposite party to the Secretary of the Society, there is no question of undertaking development work by the first opposite party. Further, here it is important to note that, what is stated in this letter is that, the Society to look after development work for five years. Development work has been completed and it is certified by the second opposite party. Even otherwise, from the letter noted in the above paragraph of the first opposite party, which is dated 17.01.2003, the garden and civic amenities were handed over to the second opposite party and as contended in the letter of the first opposite party, the Society was to look after the development work for a period of five years. From the year 2003, five years will end by 17.01.2008. Even, the letter of the first opposite party is dated 04.02.2004, five years will complete by 04.02.2009. The present complaints have been filed in the month of August 2009, that is after completion of said five years as submitted by the learned advocate. Hence, on the basis of said letter, the first opposite party cannot even now escape it’s liability contending that, the Society which formed the layout has to look after the developmental work. Also, it is relevant to note that, in the said letter, it was stated by first opposite party to look after development work, but not the maintenance of the layout. At the cost of repetition, in the year 2003 itself, the society has handed over the entire layout and hence, we found no substance in the contention of the first opposite party that even now also, the society has to maintain the layout, though first opposite party is collecting all the taxes and cess.<br /> <br /> 21. The letter referred to above dated 04.02.2004, further falsify the contention of the first opposite party that, the second opposite party has not handed over the layout to the first opposite party. In this letter, the first opposite party has specifically stated that possession of the layout has been taken. This document is produced by the complainants as well as first opposite party. It is the document of the first opposite party. Now, first opposite party cannot contend contrary. Hence, we are of the opinion that, just to avoid the duties and responsibilities, it has been contended by the first opposite party that, layout has not been handed over to it.<br /> <br /> 22. The person who has filed the affidavit for the first opposite party as noted earlier, in the additional affidavit has stated that, on the basis of the documents, now, it is learnt that, the second opposite party has not yet handed over the possession of the layout. But, the letter referred to in the above paragraph dated 04.02.2004 duly singed by the first opposite party Commissioner, establish beyond doubt that, the second opposite party has in fact handed over the possession of the layout and taking over of the possession of the layout is admitted by the first opposite party. Hence, safely we can conclude that the said facts stated by the witness for the first opposite party, by name Govindappa, is false one. That fact stated by the witness on oath is contradicted by the letter of the first opposite party. Also, said statement is even inconsistent to the fact stated in the earlier affidavit of the said witness. First opposite party has not filed any affidavit. What authority this witness Govindappa has got to file such affidavits is not made out. We will consider regarding taking action against the said witness for giving false evidence, if necessary separately.<br /> <br /> 23. Said witness Govindappa at the end of second paragraph of his first affidavit has stated that, the allegation of the complainants that on account of flow of drain water into rain water gutter, bad odour created and mosquitoes are breeding, affecting health, “is false story”. As stated by the witness, the allegation made in the complaints noted above is false story. In this connection, it is relevant to note the document that has been produced today by the learned advocate for the first opposite party signed by the Executive Engineer of the first opposite party addressed to one of the complainants dated 16.11.2009 needs to be narrated. This is the reply to the complainant under Right to Information Act. It appears, said complainant had sought information as to what action has been taken regarding stagnation of drain water and spreading of disease in the area. The reply is to the effect that, tender has been called for, for construction of septic tank. It goes to show that, because drain water is flowing on the ground or in the rain water gutter and is stagnating there, tender has been called for, for construction of septic tank. What for such tender has been called for or the particulars, are not placed on record before the Forum. However, under the circumstances, we have to conclude that, such tender has been called for, because drain water is flowing and stagnating and that has to be managed. In spite of it, the witness for the first opposite party as noted above on oath states that, the allegation made by the complainant is “false story”. It is not false story, but it is false contention of the first opposite party.<br /> <br /> 24. Also, it is relevant to note that, as submitted, the first opposite party has called for tender for construction of septic tank, which also falsify the contention of the first opposite party that, it is the duty of the Society, which formed the layout has to maintain it. If really, there was no obligation or duty on the party of the first opposite party, absolutely, there was no reason or occasion to call for such tender.<br /> <br /> 25. In the Vijaya Karantaka Daily Newspaper dated 10.06.2009, news with photographs of the sufferings of the residents of the locality in question, as well as the efforts made by them and the result, is narrated. In the same newspaper dated 21.07.2007 also along with photos, news in respect of the problems of the layout in question is published. Here it is relevant to note that, it is mentioned in the news that, the work inspector Mr.Mahesh threatened the residents, stating who gave his mobile number and wait and that I will come. This is the attitude of the officers of the first opposite party. In the same paper at the beginning, it is mentioned that most of the residents of the locality served in different departments and now, retired. Without any objections, they pay taxes or cess and they know all “internals” of the administration but unable to get their problem solved. We do not want to make further comment on the point, what it means. One has to infer or imagine according to their views. <br /> <br /> 26. Before concluding, we would like to mention the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the ruling reported in I (1994) CPR 569, which reads as under:-<br /> “Today the issue thus is not only of ward of compensation but who should bear the brunt. The concept of authority and power exercised by public functionaries has many dimensions. It has undergone tremendous change with passage of time and change in socio-economic outlook. The authority empowered to function under a Statute while exercising power discharges public duty. It has to fact to subserve general welfare and common good. In discharging this duty honestly and bonafide loss may accrue to any person. And he may claim compensation which may in circumstances be payable. But where the duty is performed capriciously or the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then the responsibility to pay the loss determined should be whose? In a modern society no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. It is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention linger on and the man in the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. The culture of window clearance appears to be totally dead. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it crodes the credibility in the system. Public administration, no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields the action of administrative authority. But where it is found that exercise of discretion was malafide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental any physical harassment then the officer can no more claim to be under protective cover. When a citizen seeks to recover compensation from a public authority in respect of injuries suffered by him for capricious exercise of power and the National Commission finds it duly proved then it has a statutory obligation to award the same? It was never more necessary then today when even social obligations are regulated by grant of statutory powers. The test of permissive form of grant are over. It is now imperative and implicit in the exercise of power that it should be for the sake of society. When the Court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man. It is the tax payer’s money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law. It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.”<br /> <br /> 27. Hence, considering the facts of the case on hand, under the circumstances, we feel it absolutely just and necessary to direct the first opposite party Commissioner of the Corporation, Mysore City, Mysore to hold an enquiry as to who are all the responsible officer/s in creating the present problem and nuisance to the residents and collect the amount from them that the Corporation is now ordered to pay to the complainants.<br /> <br /> 28. To conclude, we hold both parties deficiency in service. But, however considering the nature of the relief sought, the first opposite party having failed to maintain and provide the civic amenities in spite of collecting the tax and cess, order is passed against first opposite party to pay the compensation. Second opposite party does not take that, there is no deficiency in service on it’s part.<br /> <br /> 29. Accordingly, we answer the point in affirmative. <br /> <br /> 30. Point No. 2:- From the discussions made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order: <br /> <br /> COMMON ORDER IN CC 308 to 313--09<br /> <br /> 1. All the complaints are allowed.<br /> 2. The first opposite party is hereby directed to take all necessary steps not allowing to flow drain water openly on the ground or in the rain water gutter in the Vasu Layout in 16h Ward and take all steps to prevent nuisance to the residents of the said layout, within 15 days from the date of this order, failing which, it shall pay damages of Rs.100/- every day to each of the complainants.<br /> 3. Further, the first opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- to each one of the complainants towards mental agony as well as inconvenience caused on account of the nuisance due to deficiency in service, within 15 days from the date of this order, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.<br /> 4. So also, the first opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to each one of the complainants towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> 5. The original order shall be kept in CC-308/2009 and the Xerox copy in other 5 cases.<br /> 6. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 25th November 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />