Orissa

Rayagada

CC/173/2021

Smt. Mita Rani Mohapatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

P N Sub Divisional Officer - Opp.Party(s)

Self

11 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__173_______/2021                                    Date.   11.11. . 2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

 

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

 

 Smt.  Mita  Rani Mohapatra,  W/O: Rama Krishna  Mohapatra,  At: Near  Mangala  Mandir,  Po: Rayagada,  Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha).  765 001.  Cell No.94376-42046.                                                                                    …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Sub-divisional Officer,  P.H. Sub-division, Rayagada.                                                                                                                                             … Opposite parties.

JUDGEMENT

 

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non receipt of  Consumer  No.  towards  P.H.D. water  connection  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.  The brief  facts of the case  are summarized  here  under.

That the complainant  has  a  house  situated  near  Mangala  Mandir, Rayagada   bearing  holding  No.7/1610  of  Rayagada  Muncipality  and  has  paid up-to-date  tax  to the   Muncipality for the year 2020-2021.    To take water connection to the above  house  the complainant had contacted to the contractor   Sri  Alakha   Chandra  Dhala  who  is  authorized contractor  of the   O.P.  and handed over  all the documents and  required  amounts   for  water connection  to the above  house. The  above contractor has  given connection  to the above house.   On euquire   in the office of the O.P.  no  papers  are available  in the  O.Ps  office   towards    supply  of water connection to the  complainant for which    consumer  number  has not been issued  by the O.Ps  till date.   As   Sri   Alakha   Chandra  Dhala,  is     authorised  contractor of the  O.P. he should  submit all the documents  before the O.Ps. for  issue of consumer  No. in favour   of the complainant.  In spite of  frequent  approach to the O.Ps  they have   paid deaf ear  and not heard  the  grievances of the complainant.  As   per rule  after receipt of grievance  from the complainant they should enquired about the matter and  accordingly  discharge the works.   Hence this case.  The  complainant  prays the  District Commision   direct the O.P  to issue Consumer No. in  the name of the complainant  towards above house holding No. 7 / 1610.

On being noticed the O.Ps  appeared in person and filed   reply.

Heard  arguments from the   parties..   We perused the complaint petition and the documents  filed  by   both the parties.

This District Commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

          FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that,  undisputedly the complainant  has  a  house  situated  near  Mangala  Mandir, Rayagada   bearing  holding  No.7/1610  of  Rayagada  Muncipality  and  has  paid up-to-date  tax  to the   Muncipality for the year 2020-2021.  Undisputedly   the complainant  had given all the documents  to  the contractor   Sri  Alakha   Chandra   Dhala   for supply  of the  water  connection   to the house of the complainant and   deposited money.   Undisputedly the   water   connection  had  given  by   the contractor  but no  consumer   No.  had been  issued   in favour of the  complainant till date.  Hence this   C.C. case  filed by the  complainant  before  the District  Commission  to  get  relief.

The   O.P. in their  written version  submitted that  the complainant is a legal consumer   of  P.H. Sub-division, Rayagada  since   February, 2013  bearing   consumer  No. 6688 , Ledger  folio  No. 35/47  , 7/47.

On  perusal of the  record   it is revealed  that   till date   no correspondence  had  made by the  O.P.   to the complainant   for payment of the  water  tax.   Therefore  the complainant   is  not  liable  for payment   water  tax   since  February  2013.

That for failure to act properly by the statutary authority i.e. O.P.  the complainant  should not be deprived of his benefits legitmate entitlement. It is  to be ensured   that the benefit to which the complainant is eligible are  entitled  enjoy it and it should not became a distant dream.  In most of the similar  cases  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court observed  “Negligence  by  public authorities cannot be paradoned.

Having considered the entire evidence and material brought on record  and respective contentions raised by the complainant, we are of the considered opinion that the O.P has miserably failed   to establish his water charges as  demand by means of cognet and reliable evidence.  As  a consequence, we hold that the complainant is not  liable to pay the water charges for the period from from  February, 2013  onwards  to the O.Ps and liable to be quashed the above demand as the complainant was not  aware  of the  same..

The complainant further submitted  before the District Commission  that the  above demand of the O.Ps are per se illegal.

Further we observed the O.Ps are not rendering proper service to the complainant establishes their callousness and whimsical attitude. This  Commission  feel that the services of the O.Ps  are deteriorating and does not follows   ethics.  Due to the negligent attitude of  the  O.Ps complainant deprived of   to deposit the water charges ..

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations  there  exists deficiency in service on the part of the  O.Ps which is Aliane Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.

                                                ORDER.

In Resultant the complaint petition is allowed in part on contest  against the O.Ps.

The  water charges demanded by the O.P .for the period from February, 2013 to September, 2021 towards  consumer No. 6688  is  not legally sustainable  inter alia demand of Rs.15,738/- is non-est  towards  water connection connected to the house premises  of the complainant is  hereby quashed.

The  O.Ps  are hereby  ordered to receive the water charges w.e.f. April, 2021  onwards  from the complainant  bearing consumer No. 6688.  Parties are left to bear their own cost.

The complainant is directed to deposit the water charges w.e.f. April, 2021 onwards in the counter of the O.P. and obtain receipt.

The O.Ps  are  ordered to comply the above directions within  30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Serve the copies of the above  order  to the parties concerned immediately.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced  on  this               11^th.          day   of      November,                 , 2021.

MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT