West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/8/2015

Sri Santu Ojha - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

20 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.08/2015                                                                                         Date of disposal: 20/03/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. R. Singh, Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                          : Mr. A Das, Advocate.                                   

          

 Sri Santu Ojha, Sri Biswajit Ojha, Sons of late Aghar Ojha, Redising at Mirjabazar, Goyalapara,

 near Sasti Mandir, Municiapl Ward No.22, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, PIN.

 721101…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1)The Chairman, Medinipur Municipality, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, PIN.721101.

2)Board of Councillors, Medinipur Municipality, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, PIN. 721101..……………Ops.

         The case of the complainants, in short, is that they applied for new water connection on 18/03/2014 before the OP, Medinipur Municipality but the same has not been effected to.  Being aggrieved, they moved before the SDO on 02/05/2014 who considering the matter called for a report.  In course of time, the OP Municipality held a meeting on 18/11/2014 and thereby approved the prayer of the complainant. Accordingly the complainants deposited the requisite charges Rs.13,800/- on 15/12/2014.  In spite of that no connection has been given to.  Stating the case the complainants prayed for new water connection and compensation.  Certain documents are produced by the complainants.

         The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action and the statement made in the petition of the complaint is frivolous and misconceived.  The OP further stated in the said written objection supported by affidavit that one Bijay Kumar Bera raised a dispute regarding the ownership of the plot at the time when the OP was effecting water line to the complainant.  In that event, OP made inquiry and sat

Contd…………….P/2

 

                                                                - ( 2 ) -

 together with the objector Bijay Kumar Bera for amicable settlement and a survey report dated 25/05/2014.  In the Board meeting dated 28/11/2014,  it was decided for water connection in favour of the complainant and accordingly tried for installation of the work.  Even thereupon, the OP was resisted with a petition under the proceeding No.575/2014 and a separate title suit being its N0. 332/2014 which are pending before the Ld. Executive Magistrate and in Civil Court respectively.  All the cases are within the knowledge of the complainant.  But they have suppressed before the Forum.  Raising the objection, the OP claims that there is no deficiency of service on their part and as such the case should be dismissed.     

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the case is barred by jurisdiction?

4)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that in spite of making deposit of the estimated charge on account of new water connection, the OP delays to effect the same.  So, necessary direction is highly required in favour of the complainant.  While submission it has been referred to us that running water line is existing alongwith the public road and there is no valid ground for delaying the same. 

            Objection raised by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP Municipality, it is disclosed that the Municipality several times took attempt but for objection on behalf of the adjoining owner on the issue of ownership of the plot through which the water connection was proposed to be installed towards the house of the complainants.  There exists litigation causing serious impediments and obstruction in the matter of installation of water line which is known to the complainant.  Since the complainants and the local residents Bijay Kumar Bera are involved in the dispute over the ownership of the plot in question, it is difficult for the OP to give effect of the water line as moved by the complainants, though the OP Municipality is always ready and prepared for this purpose. So, there is not deficiency of service and as such the case should be dismissed.

Contd…………….P/3

 

                                                                - ( 3 ) -

 

        We have carefully considered the case together with the arguments with the help of material evidence on record.  The documents in this regard are not challenged by the parties.  It is evident that the complainants effectively discharged their requirements for the purpose of getting new water connection.  In this matter, the OP Municipality is found to have tried very sincerely even by joint sitting with the third party objector Bijay Kumar Bera.  Even thereafter, the prayer for water connection has not been materialized due to additional incidents of civil litigation on the issue of determination of ownership of the plot through which the connection is to be laid on.  If that be so, it is unfortunate for the complainants as for this Forum is not statutorily authorized to try into the question of ownership dispute between the complainants and the third party neighbour Bijay Kumar Bera.

        In view of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any case of deficiency of service against the OP Medinipur Municipality as raised by the complainant.  Thus, the issues are held and disposed of accordingly.  As a result, the complainants have no case in their favour and the same should be dismissed.       

                               Hence,

                              It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed  on contest  without cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                          Member                               Member                              President

                                                                                                                                        District Forum

                                                                                                                                   Paschim Medinipur.