Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/2849/2009

Sri K.Kempalingaiah, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Asst. Executive Engineer, - Opp.Party(s)

IP

06 Jan 2010

ORDER


IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/2849/2009

Sri K.Kempalingaiah,
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Asst. Executive Engineer,
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Complainant present. On behalf of opposite party Assistant Executive Engineer is also present. The complainant has executed a letter in favour of opposite party on 31.12.2009 at 3.30 p.m. stating that he is getting water with the existing pipes and he also stated in his letter the water meter was opened on 10.11.2009 and 12.11.2009 to check water flow and water was coming in the pipe full but without pressure as noticed by AEE, inspector. The Assistant Executive Engineer who was present before the fora also submitted that opposite party will see that water is supplied to the complainant’s house regularly as per the norms. So in view of the submissions and the letter given by the complainant their remains no cause of action for the complainant to file the complaint. The complainant has requested that the Hon’ble Forum may direct AEE, BWSSB to ensure supply of water. In view of the letter and submission of the complainant since, the complainant is getting water no further direction is required. The complainant has requested that nominal fee of Rs. 1,000/- be imposed on opposite party. This prayer of the complainant is not maintainable before this fora. There is no such provision in the Consumer Protection Act to impose fine without there being any deficiency of service. By reading complaint there is absolutely no pleading of deficiency of service rendered by the opposite party. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be closed as not maintainable. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 2. The complaint is dismissed and matter is closed. 3. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 4. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2010. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER