Complainant/petitioner was allotted a plot by the respondent.  Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent failed to provide water for construction of the house.  The stand taken by the respondent was that the respondent had provided tubewell

-2-

connection to the allottees and since the petitioner had not applied for the same, the water connection was not given to him.  Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- by way of damages and Rs.200/- as costs.

          Respondent being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission has allowed the appeal and reversed the order passed by the District Forum holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent; the water connection was not given as the petitioner had not applied for the same.

          Counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the petitioner had not applied for the water connection.  Water connection could be given only if the petitioner had applied for the same.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in not giving the

-3-

water.  We find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.