DATE OF FILING : 31-01-2013. DATE OF S/R : 07-05-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 22-08-2013. Awadesh Sharma, s/o. lt. Nandalal Sharma of 17/1, Bhagaban Ganguly Lane, P.S. & District – Howrah.----------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - 1. Sila Shaw, w/o. Monoj Kr. Shaw. 2. Monoj Kr. Shaw, s/o. lt. Payeralal Shaw, both of 17/1, Bhagban Ganguly Lane, P.S. & District – Howrah. ----------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES. P R E S E N T President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS. Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee. Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. F I N A L O R D E R 1. Complainant Awadesh Sharma by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p., Sila Shaw, to restore the supply of water in the petitioner’s flat, to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost along with other reliefs. 2. Brief fact of the case is that the complainant along with his wife is staying on the first floor flat of the building situated at 17/1, Bhagaban Ganguly Lane, Howrah, since the year 2000 on payment of agreed rent of Rs. 580/- being paid to the then landlady Smt. Lalta Devi and she took a total payment of Rs. 2,974/- for purchasing meter being Rs. 2,000/-, as electric charges for running water motor pump being Rs. 100/-, electricity charge being Rs. 294/- including rent being Rs. 580/- for the month of October to Novermber, 2000 vide annexures being bill no. 44 dated 01-12-2000 and another money receipt attached showing total payment of Rs. 2,974/-. Subsequently, on 28-08-2009, the said Lalta Devi transferred the building in favour of her two daughter in law being Nagina Devi and Sila Shaw. And Complainant became the tenant of Sila Shaw on payment of Rs. 767/- as rent vide Annexure Bill no. 29 dated 06-07-2010. But on 09-04-2012 , O.Ps. along with other family members have disconnected the water supply to the flat of the complainant for which he was compelled to buy water from external sources on payment of Rs. 50/- per day. It is alleged that O.P. member although took extra charges for water supply but stopped the water connection which led to unbearable suffering for the complainant, a senior citizen, and his wife. And it is also stated that complainant has filed several petitions before the Ld. C .J.M., Howrah, I.C., Howrah P.S. and case was started and O.P. members took anticipatory bail duly granted by Session Judge, Howrah, and they also surrendered before Ld. C.J.M. and were released on bail. But even then, O.P. has not yet restored the water supply of the complainant and being a heart patient, complainant is suffering a lot which prompted him to file this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief. 3. Notices were sent to O.Ps. and it was returned ‘unclaimed’ which is a good service in the eye of law. O.Ps. neither appeared nor filed any written version. Accordingly, the case was heard ex parte. 4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ? ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Complainant filed his petition swearing an affidavit along with all documents. From a document dated 24-03-2010, xerox copy of an agreement, it is revealed that O.P. 2, Monoj Kumar Shaw claiming to be the power of attorney holder of the instant property in question, took Rs. 19,500/- from the complainant as an advance to make the property as an ownership one. And said Manoj Kr. Shaw put his signature on behalf of O.P. 1 Sila Shaw on rent bill no. 29 dated 06-07-2010 drawn in favour of the complainant. And vide Annexure dated 24-03-2010, the agreement between Manoj Kr. Shaw and the complainant, the said ownership flat was to be made within one year i.e., within 24-03-2011 but it was not effected. And the first landlady, Latlta Devi, took extra amount of Rs. 2,394/- from the complainant to provide electricity and water supply to the complainant which comes under the purview of service definition of the C.P. Act. Moreover, water is a bare need for leading a smooth and peaceful life and any way, it can never be disturbed or stopped. O.P. does not have any civic sense. Even after taking charges for electricity and water supply, O.P. stopped water supply which is nothing but gross deficiency in providing service to the complainant which should never be allowed to be perpetuated. It is also to be mentioned that O.Ps. have not cared to appear before this Forum which means that O.Ps. have nothing to put forward in their favour. And the allegation of the complainant made out in his complaint / petition remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. Points under consideration are accordingly decided. Accordingly, the case succeeds against O.Ps. with costs. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 24 of 2013 ( HDF 24 of 2013 ) be allowed ex parte with costs against the O.Ps. That the O.Ps. are directed to restore the water connection of the complainant immediately within seven days from this order i.d., Rs. 50/- per day shall be imposed upon O.P. till actual restoration of water supply. That the O.Ps. are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within 30 days from this order i.d., the entire amount of Rs. 7,000/- shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( Jhumki Saha ) Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. ( Jhumki Saha ) ( P. K. Chatterjee ) (T.K. Bhattacharya ) Member, Member, President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. C.D.R.F.,Howrah. C.D.R.F.,Howrah . |