BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 41 of 2013
Mofosil Ali Laskar, ………………………………………………… Complainant.
-V/S-
1. Sunam Uddin Barbhuiya,
President of Kabuganj Water Supply and
Sanitation Committee. O.P No.1.
2. Smti. Jharna Sharma,
Secretary of Kabuganj Water Supply and
Sanitation Committee. O.P No.2.
3. Formuj Ali Laskar,
Member of Kabuganj Water Supply and
Sanitation Committee. O.P No3.
4. Ala Uddin Laskar,
Member of Kabuganj Water Supply and
Sanitation Committee. O.P No.4.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Mr. Ali Akbar Laskar, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Abdul Hai Laskar, Advocate for the O.Ps.
Date of Evidence……………………….. 13-03-20-14,
Date of written argument……………… 31-05-2016
Date of judgment………………………. 29-12-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
- This complaint is brought by Mofosil Ali Laskar (complainant) against the President, Secretary and 2 (two) other Members of Kabuganj Water Supply and Sanitation Committee by name for mandatory direction to restore hydrain for drinking water to the BPL beneficiaries free of cost and compensation. The case has been brought under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
- The complaint stated inter-alia as below:
He is consumer under Kabuganj Water Supply and Sanitation. He was using a hydrain situated in front of his house for drinking water and accordingly paying monthly charge for using the water of Rs.20/- but the O.P most illegally and un-justifying destroyed not only the hydrain situated in front of his house but also a hydrain situated near Kabuganj Pucca Masjid.
- The O.P submitted their joint W/S. In the W/S stated inter-alia that the complainant is not a consumer of Kabuganj Water Supply and Sanitation Committee and also stated that the hydrain situated near the Kabuganj Pucca Masjid was shifted to 20/30 meter from earlier point due to public demand. Similarly, it is also stated that the hydrain situated in front of Kabuganj Madrassa shifted at a distance of 10 meter in the north because a little number of consumer were there.
- To establish the plea, the complainant deposed as P.W-1 and also examined 4 (four) more witness to support his plea. The witness also produced some receipts of payment of monthly charge at the rate of Rs.20/-. The O.Ps also examined themselves as D.W-1 to 4 respectively. The O.P also examined 2 (two) more independent witness Sri Tapan KumarDas and Binoy Deb Roy as D.W-5 and D.W-6 respectively. The O.P also exhibited some documents vide Ext-A to Ext-Y.
- I have perused the written argument of the complainant and evidence on record but none has orally argued the case.
- In this case, it is admitted fact that 2(two) hydrain (road side water tape) were shifted but the complainant made allegation that the said hydrain destroyed. In support his witness also deposed on oath but the O.Ps tried to justify the cause for shifting. The D.W-2 added supporting evidence regarding shifting the hydrain.
- The plea of the O.Ps are that due to public demand hydrain situated near Kabuganj Puccca Masjid shifted and due to less number of consumer, the hydrain situated in front of Kabuganj Madrassa shifted. To support those facts the O.P exhibited a resolution of Kabuganj Water Supply and Sanitation Committee vide Ext-X but no resolution of that committee exhibited for shifting hydrain situated in front of the Kabuganj Madrassa. That is why, this Forum is not in a position to conclude as whether shifting of hydrain from the place in front of Kabuganj Madrassa to other place was done as per sweet will of the O.Ps or as per public demand.
- Anyhow, this District Forum is adopting summery procedure to obtain evidence, that is why a sticky issue cannot be decided conclusively in this Forum as whether the shifting of the hydrain was justified. The Civil Court is the competent Forum to adjudicate that issue conclusively. However, in this Forum I am to see as whether the complainant is consumer to get relief. The complainant deposed that he is consumer because he paid monthly charge of Rs.20.00 to the Kabuganj Water Supply and Sanitation Committee and obtained receipt. But O.P denied the plea. The D.W-5 and 6 being independent witness also deposed that neither the complainant nor all witness of the complainant are consumer of the Kabuganj Water Supply and Sanitation Committee. That is why, the complainant produced a receipt allegedly issued by the Kabuganj Water Supply and Sanitation Committee. But on careful perusal of that receipt I do not find, date of issue of the receipt, Month of water charge and signature of Secretary or collector of Kabugajn Water Supply and Sanitation Committee. So his above receipt is not sufficient to establish the fact that he paid the water charge to use hydrain. Accordingly, the receipt of other P.Ws are not taken into consideration to conclude the status of the complainant as consumer. Moreover, when the complainant has not been able to establish his status by adducing evidence, so evidence of his witness are not sufficient to establish his status as consumer. Moreover Ext.B certificate has established the fact that the Complainant is not Consumer under Kabuganj Water Supply and Sanitation but residing under the jurisdiction of V.W.S and S.S, Nagdirgram part-III.
- Thus, this District Forum is not in a position to grant any relief to the complainant. Therefore, this case is dismissed on contest without any cost. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 29th day of December, 2017.
