West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/201/2012

Amal Kumar Mahato - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman, Kharagpur Municipality, - Opp.Party(s)

22 Feb 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 Complaint case No. 201/2012                                                                                         

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.                                               

   

                   Amal Kumar Mahato, S/o-Late Surya Kanta Mahato……….………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

       The Chairman, Kharagpur Municipality, Kharagpur…………………….Op.

Order No.04                                                                                             Dated:-22/02/13

              Complainant files hazira along with Xerox copies of documents under a firisti. The Op. files a certificate issued by Mr. Susanta Chattapadhaya, Chairman-in Council water works, Kharagpur Municipality where from it appears that the water connection to the house of the complainant has been given. The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has admitted that the connection has been given as per rule of the Municipality but he alleged that the water pipe connecting the holding of the complainant from the main pipe is lying is such a position that the same may be damaged by vehicular traffic since the relevant portion of the pipe has not been properly covered. Ld. Lawyer appearing for the Op. Municipality has undertaken before this Forum that the Op. shall take adequate measure for proper protection of the pipe if not already taken and he shall personally see into the matter considering the need of the complainant. Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has expressed his satisfaction upon such under taking and submits that the case may be disposed of since the requirement of the complainant has been fulfilled. However Ld. Lawyer for the complainant prays for passing an order for litigation cost. We have duly considered this submission. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above and in view of the fact that the purpose of the complainant has been served and further, the gesture shown by the Ld. Lawyer for the Op-Municipality we do not purpose to pass any order relating to cost and compensation.

                    The case is, thus disposed of.

 

                       Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                           Sd/-

                   Member                                      Member                                   President      

                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                 Paschim Medinipur.