DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR PRESENT:- Sri S.Chinnaiah, B.A., B.L., President Smt.S.Lalitha, M.A., M.L., Member Friday, the 25th day of April, 2008 C.C.No.139/2007 Between: K.Rama Bhupala Reddy S/o K.Golla Reddy D.No.1-497, Gooty Town Anantapur District. …. Complainant Vs. 1. The Panchayat Secretary rep. Gooty Gram Panchayat Grama Sachivalayam Gooty Town Anantapur District. 2. The Sarpanch representing Gooty Gram Panchayat Grama Sachivalayam Gooty Town Anantapur District. 3. The District Panchayat Officer, Office of the District Panchayat Office Sainagar Anantapur. …. Opposite Parties This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P.Sreekanth, advocate for the complainant and Sri K.Suresh Chandra, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 to 3 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following: O R D E R 1. This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant K.Rama Bhupala Reddy to direct the opposite parties to provide minimum amenities like drainage facility and further direct to pay Rs.10,000/- being damages and costs of the complaint. 2. The contents of the complaint in brief are that the 1st opposite party is the Executive Authority representing Gram Panchayat and the 2nd opposite party being elected and administrative authority of Gram Panchayat, Gooty carrying their activities from Grama Sachivalayam, Gooty. The 3rd opposite party is added as proforma party as he is the District Panchayat Officer. The complainant is the owner of the house bearing Door No.1-497 of Gooty Town, by virtue of the Will executed by his mother and his mother C.M.Rojamma executed the said Will in his favour with regard to the said house. His mother constructed the house in the year 1995 by obtaining approval from the Gram Panchayat Authorities and constructed the house as per the specifications mentioned in the plan. She was paying all necessary taxes to the Gram Panchayat Authorities regularly and was obtaining receipts. The Gram Panchayat Authorities have laid Cement Concrete Road in the year 2004 in the street in which the complainant’s residential house is situated. The Grama Panchayat Authorities though laid road in the street without giving scope to move the drainage water from the houses of the said street without providing drainage facility laid the road. As the Gram Panchayat Authorities did not properly provide the drainage facility, the residents of the street were forced to leave all the drainage water on the road. As the drainage water is stagnating on the road, indirectly the Gram Panchayat giving scope to develop mosquitoes and pigs, which causes dangerous diseases like Chicken Guinea, Dengue, Typhoid and Cholera. Though the complainant made several demands on the opposite parties personally for the rectification and providing minimum amenities, which were essential to the public to protect themselves from the dangerous and hazardous atmosphere, but in vain. The opposite parties 1 & 2 being the concerned authorities are liable to discharge their duties. The opposite parties 1 & 2 being the concerned authorities having received tax from the complainant, it is their duty to provide such minimum amenities, which were essential to the public to protect themselves from the dangerous and hazardous atmosphere, but not doing so have committed deficiency of service as contemplated under rules. The opposite parties have caused mental agony in the mind of the complainant, which the complainant is claiming Rs.10,000/- as damages. The complainant having failed in all the attempts in asking for rectification of mistake done by the authorities i.e. laying of Cement Concrete Road without providing proper drainage facility though so many representations made orally and were never turned up. Thus, the case of the complainant. 3. The 1st opposite party filed a counter contending that the petition contents are not completely correct. It is true that the Gram Panchayat has laid cement road in front of the house of the complainant. There was no possibility for the Gram Panchayat to provide drainage for the house of the complainant. The Gram Panchayat is maintaining drainages in the town. The Gram Panchayat can not provide drainage for every house. The complainant has to arrange sink pit and use the bathroom water collected there. The neighbours in the locality have sunk pits for the bathroom water to collect for their houses. The complainant is deliberately allowing his bathroom water to flow on the road and causing much nuisance in the locality. The complainant is giving scope to develop mosquitoes and pigs, which caused diseases like Typhoid and Cholera etc., It is further stated that section 45(4) and section 138-A of A.P.Gram Panchayat Act envisage that “ no suit or other legal proceedings shall be brought against any Gram Panchayat or Sarpanch or Executive Authority. “ Notice has to be issued to the Gram Panchayat or Sarpanch etc., before instituting the legal proceedings and after lapse of statutory period, legal proceedings can be instituted, which is mandatory. There is no cause of action for the complainant to file this complaint and he is not entitled for damages and costs as prayed for. Hence, dismiss the complaint with costs. 4. Heard arguments on both sides. 5. The point that arises for consideration herein is: Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties ? 6. Ex.A1 to A3 are marked for the complainant. No documents are marked for the opposite parties. Ex.A1 is the Will executed by Smt.C.M.Rojamma in favour of the complainant for the house bearing Door No.1-497 of Gooty town. Ex.A2 are the House Tax Receipts (two in number). Ex.A3 are the Photographs with negatives (three in number). 7(a) POINT:- The complainant is the resident of Gooty town possessing a house bearing Door Nos.1-497 and 498 and got the same through his mother under Ex.A1 Will dated 19-12-2001. Ex.A2 are the house tax receipts paid by the mother of the complainant for the house bearing Door Nos.1-497 and 498. The case of the complainant is that the Gram Panchayat Authorities, who are the opposite parties herein have laid Cement Concrete Road in the year 2004 in the street in which he is residing. These are the admitted facts. (b) We have gone through the contents of the complaint, counter, sworn affidavits of parties, documents filed herein and the material available on record. Before entering into the merits and demerits of the case, it is relevant to discuss the rival contentions on both sides. (c) The contention of the complainant is that the Gram Panchayat Authorities laid road in the street without giving scope to pass the drainage water from the houses of the said street. The opposite parties have laid road without providing drainage facility while laying the road. His next contention is that as the Gram Panchayat did not properly provide the drainage facility, the residents of the street forced to leave all drainage water on the road. His next contention is that Ex.A3 Photographs taken showing the actual position of the street and stagnation of water, which clearly shows that the Gram Panchayat did not properly provide the drainage facility. His next contention is that as the drainage water is stagnating on the road indirectly, the Gram Panchayat is giving scope to develop mosquitoes and catering of pigs, which causes dangerous diseases. His next contention is that though he made several demands on the opposite parties personally for the rectification and providing minimum amenities, but in vain. His last contention is that as the opposite parties have not taken proper care in providing drainage facility, there is deficiency of service on their part. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties vehemently contended that there was no possibility for the Gram Panchayat to provide drainage for the house of the complainant. His next contention is that the Gram Panchayat is maintaining drainages in the town. It can not provide drainage for every house. His next contention is that the complainant has to arrange sink pits and use the bathroom water collected. The neighbours of the complainant have sunk pits for the bathroom water to collect for their houses. His next contention is that the complainant has deliberately allowing his bathroom water to flow on the road and causing much nuisance in the locality and giving scope to develop mosquitoes and catering of pigs, which causes diseases and as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 9. After going through the rival contentions, we have to necessarily accept the contention of the complainant. In the present case, the very case of the complainant is that the opposite parties Gram Panchayat Authorities while laying Cement Concrete Road in the year 2004 in the street where the house of the complainant is situated, the opposite parties have not provided drainage facility. The opposite parties are not disputing the case of the complainant regarding laying of Cement Concrete Road as stated by the complainant. 10. Now, the case of the opposite parties is that there was no possibility for the Gram Panchayat to provide drainage facility for the house of the complainant. Their next case is that the Gram Panchayat is maintaining drainages in the town. It can not provide drainage for each and every house and that the complainant has to arrange sink pit and use the bathroom water collected there. Their next case is that the neighbours in the locality of the complainant have sunk pits for the bathroom water to collect for their houses. The complainant is deliberately allowing his bath-room water to flow on the road and causing much nuisance in the locality and giving scope to develop mosquitoes, which caused diseases like Typhoid and Cholera etc., Thus, the opposite parties are disputing the case of the complainant. However, the opposite parties have laid Cement Concrete Road in the street passing through the house of the complainant. There is no evidence or record to show that the opposite parties have provided facility for passing of drainage and rain water. On the other hand, Ex.A3 photos filed by the complainant taken for the street in which Cement Concrete Road is laid shows that no facility is provided on either side of the road for passing wastage water. It is to be stated that it is natural while laying road, it is the duty of the Gram Panchayat to provide facility for passing drainage water from the houses situated on either side. It is to be stated that even if the house owners have sunk pits for collection of bathroom water, the Gram Panchayat has to take sufficient care for flow of rain water. They can not allow the water stagnated on the road, which causes diseases. Hence, under the circumstances, we feel satisfied that the opposite parties while laying Cement Concrete Road have not taken sufficient care and caution to provide proper drainage facility, which amounts to deficiency of service on their part. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties vehemently urged that sections 45(4) and 138-A of A.P.Gram Panchayat Act envisages that “ no suit or other legal proceedings shall be brought against any Grama Panchayat or Sarpanch or Executive Authority. “ Notice has to be issued to the Gram Panchayat or Sarpanch before instituting the legal proceedings and after lapse of statutory period, the legal proceedings can be instituted, which is mandatory. His last contention is that the complainant has come forward with the present complaint without giving legal notice violating the procedure laid down under Gram Panchayat Act and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant in equal force contended that the complainant has approached the Gram Panchayat Authorities for several times and orally requested to provide drainage facility, but his request was not considered. His next contention is that simply because the complainant did not give legal notice, is not a ground to reject the claim of the complainant for the reason, he made several oral representations. 13. After going through the rival contentions, it is no doubt true, we have to necessarily accept the contention of the counsel for the opposite parties as the complainant did not give notice before filing the complaint. In this case, it is to be stated that the complainant in the complaint, it is stated that he personally made several demands to the opposite parties for rectification and providing minimum amenities , which are essential to the public to protect themselves from the dangerous and hazardous atmosphere, but in vain. Hence, it shows that the complainant made oral representations to the opposite parties to provide minimum amenities. Hence, under the circumstances, the contention of the complainant that he made oral representations for providing drainage facility is itself sufficient to bring to the notice of the opposite parties for providing drainage facility. Hence, under the circumstances, simply the complainant did not give notice to the opposite parties before filing the complaint, it can not be said that the entire case of the complainant has to be thrown out. It is to be stated that the opposite parties being Gram Panchayat collecting house tax and other taxes from the house owners, it is their foremost duty to provide drainage facility to protect the public from the dangerous diseases and hazardous atmosphere. Under the circumstances, the opposite parties have not taken sufficient care to provide proper drainage facility while laying Cement Concrete Road in the street, where the complainant’s house is situated. In the complaint, the 3rd opposite party, who is the District Panchayat Officer, is shown as proforma party and no relief is claimed against him. Hence, under the circumstances, the complaint against the 3rd opposite party is dismissed without costs. 14. The complainant is claiming Rs.10,000/- as damages from the opposite parties. It is to be stated that the inconvenience caused is not only to the complainant but also to other inhabitants of the locality, where the complainant is residing, for not providing drainage facility while laying Cement Concrete Road by the opposite parties. So, under the circumstances, we feel satisfied that there are no grounds to award damages to the complainant as claimed. Accordingly, we hold that the complainant is not entitled for any damages. 15. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to provide minimum amenities like drainage facility to the complainant and the public residing in the street where the house of the complainant is situated. They are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.250/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty only) towards costs of this complaint. This order shall be complied with, within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The complaint against the 3rd opposite party is dismissed without costs. Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 25th day of April, 2008. Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT: NIL OPPOSITE PARTIES: NIL EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT Ex.A1 - Xerox copy of the Will executed by Smt.C.M.Rojamma in favour of the complainant for the house bearing Door No.1-497 of Gooty town. Ex.A2 - Original House Tax Receipts (two in number). Ex.A3 - Photographs with negatives (three in number). EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES - N I L – Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR Typed by JPNN
......................Smt.S.Lalitha
......................Sri S.Chinnaiah | | 
