Date of Filing : 11/11/2013
Order No. 18 dt. 05/02/2018
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is the owner in respect of 4 ½ chottak of land situated at the premises no.82, Paharpur Road, P.S. Metiabruz, Kolkata-24. The said premises is consisted of different small plot with structure. It has no separate water connection individually. The complainant other occupants have to collect water from the public tap water. The complainant applied for getting a separate water connection and the men of o.p. nos.1 and 2 came to execute the said work, but o.p. no.3 raised objection in installing of the said water pipe for which the work could not be completed. The complainant has stated that o.p. nos.1 and 2 has every right to install the water connection at the premises of the complainant and o.p. no.3 has no right to interfere in the work of o.p. nos.1 and 2. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for providing the water connection at the premises of the complainant and also restraining the o.p. no.3 for causing any illegal obstruction at the time of installation of water connection at the premises of the complainant.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complainant. In their w/v o.p. nos.1 and 2 stated that the case filed by the complainant is not maintainable since the complainant is not a consumer and the complainant has not paid any money in favour of KMC either for purchasing anything or hiring any service from KMC. The complainant had engaged the KMC enlisted plumber for getting water connection by installing a ferrule and by fixing new pipe line for the purpose of stretching water pipe line. Ferrule is got to be fitted at the junction of main water pipe line of KMC. KMC received the water connection fee, road opening fee and road restoration fee from the complainant for giving water connection as per the rules. KMC gave sanction for water connection and it has to see that the road has opened and ferrule is fitted with the main pipe line, but it has no other burden to stretch the water pipe line beyond the KMC road. The stretch of water pipe line through the private road or common passage is not liability of KMC, it is entirely burden of the complainant to make arrangement of the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. nos.1 and 2 and as such, o.p. nos.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
In their w/v o.p. nos.3 stated that the pipe whereby the complainant wanted to have the connection was to be taken through a common passage. The o.p. no.3 being the owner of the adjacent construction of the complainant and o.p. no.3 has every right to enjoy the said common passage. The complainant made a false allegation against o.p. no.3 and filed a suit for declaration injunction and the court after hearing both sides vacated the ad-interim order of the injunction. The said suit is still pending before the Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alipore being title suit no.1089 of 2011. While right of the complainant will be decided by Ld. Civil Judge, the complainant has got no right title interest in respect of the said common passage excepting enjoyment of the passage for ingress and egress. Therefore the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and as such, o.p. no.3 prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant has the right to have the water connection through the common passage?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant is the owner in respect of 4 ½ chottak of land situated at the premises no.82, Paharpur Road, P.S. Metiabruz, Kolkata-24. The said premises is consisted of different small plot with structure. It has no separate water connection individually. The complainant other occupants have to collect water from the public tap water. The complainant applied for getting a separate water connection and the men of o.p. nos.1 and 2 came to execute the said work, but o.p. no.3 raised objection in installing of the said water pipe for which the work could not be completed. The complainant has stated that o.p. nos.1 and 2 has every right to install the water connection at the premises of the complainant and o.p. no.3 has no right to interfere in the work of o.p. nos.1 and 2. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for providing the water connection at the premises of the complainant and also restraining the o.p. no.3 for causing any illegal obstruction at the time of installation of water connection at the premises of the complainant.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. nos.1 and 2 argued that the case filed by the complainant is not maintainable since the complainant is not a consumer and the complainant has not paid any money in favour of KMC either for purchasing anything or hiring any service from KMC. The complainant had engaged the KMC enlisted plumber for getting water connection by installing a ferrule and by fixing new pipe line for the purpose of stretching water pipe line. Ferrule is got to be fitted at the junction of main water pipe line of KMC. KMC received the water connection fee, road opening fee and road restoration fee from the complainant for giving water connection as per the rules. KMC gave sanction for water connection and it has to see that the road has opened and ferrule is fitted with the main pipe line, but it has no other burden to stretch the water pipe line beyond the KMC road. The stretch of water pipe line through the private road or common passage is not liability of KMC, it is entirely burden of the complainant to make arrangement of the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. nos.1 and 2 and as such, o.p. nos.1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.3 argued that the pipe whereby the complainant wanted to have the connection was to be taken through a common passage. The o.p. no.3 being the owner of the adjacent construction of the complainant and o.p. no.3 has every right to enjoy the said common passage. The complainant made a false allegation against o.p. no.3 and filed a suit for declaration injunction and the court after hearing both sides vacated the add interim order of the injunction. The said suit is still pending before the Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alipore being title suit no.1089 of 2011. While right of the complainant will be decided by Ld. Civil Judge, the complainant has got no right title interest in respect of the said common passage excepting enjoyment of the passage for ingress and egress. Therefore the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and as such, o.p. no.3 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant though claimed that he is the owner in respect of 4 ½ cottah of land and the complainant is the owner in respect of a small room, standing thereon. It is also an admitted fact that o.p. no.3 is the adjacent owner of the small premises of the complainant. It is evident from the materials on record that common passage exists between the parties and the said passage can only be used for the purpose of ingress and egress. The complainant without having any concurrence from o.p. no.3 tried to take water connection in his premises. The complainant deposited the necessary charges and o.p. nos.1 and 2 as per rule wanted to provide the water connection and for that purpose the ferrule was fixed with the junction of main water pipe line. It is not the duty of KMC to provide the water line through the common passage which is a private property. Therefore, we hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. nos.1 and 2. Apart from the said fact it is found from the materials on record that a civil suit is pending before the Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alipore whereby the right of the parties regarding the enjoyment of common passage will be decided by the Civil Court. Since the matter is subjudice and the title of the property will be decided by the Civil Court after getting evidence from both sides Ld. Civil Court will decide the dispute between the parties regarding the enjoyment of common passage. Therefore at this stage this Forum cannot pass any order directing the o.ps. not to create any hindrance in respect of getting water connection through the common passage as claimed by the complainant. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.658/2013 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
