Before the District CONSUMERS Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 29th day of August, 2003
C.D.No.12/2002
M.Jagadeeswara Reddy,
S/o M.Bali Reddy,
H.No.17/6,
Housing Board Colony,
Kurnool District. Complainant represented by his counsel Sri.G.Narayana.
-Vs-
1. The Executive Officer,
Gram Panchyat,
Kallur,
Kurnool District.
2. The Commissioner,
Kurnool Municipality,
Kurnool. …Opposite party represented by his counsel Sri. D.Yella Reddy.
ORDER
As per Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, Honourable President
C.C.NO.12/2002
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of the C.P.Act seeking a direction on the opposite pareties to take appropriate steps for construction of drainage channels an roads, to safe guard the public interest, to maintain the draihns in a proper way for disposal of sullage water, clean the streets and to improve the sanitary conditions of the housing Board colony Rs.15,000/- as compensation to wards the mental agony costs of the complaint and such other reliefs which the complainant may be entitled in the exigencies of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case as per his complaint are that he a tenant of H.No.17/6 MIG, Housing Board Colony in Kallur Gram Panchayat limits and paying the property tax to the opposite party on behalf of his land lard. There is no drainage channels and pacca Road in front of the complainant’s house and also in the surroundings of the said house and hence the sullage water of the other houses accumulating infront of the said residential house of the complainant and in the rainy season the water is stagnating within the compound wall of the said house. The complainant brought it to the notice of the opposite parties by his registered complainant dt 17.10.2001 requesting the taking of appropriate steps immediately but it was not responded by the opposite party and it shows the negligence of the opposite parties towards the safety and interest of the public, while sec.45. of the A.P Grampanchayat Act castes duty for the maintenance of the public sanitary system in a proper manner. The failure of the opposite parties in that regard is amounting to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. The complainant encloses to his complainant the unattested Xeroxes of the following documents viz..(1) 2002-02 House tax receipt assessment No. 8677, (2) Registered letter sent to the opposite party dt 20.10.2001.(3) Registered letter sent to the opposite party dt.08.11.2001 (4) Acknowledgment dt 10.11.2001, (5)Positive photographs and (6) Housing Board Colony probles pamphlet.
4. The complainant was originally filed against the Executive Officer, Gram panchayat, Kallur and vide order in I.A.No.49/2002 dt 27.11.2002 the commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Kurnool is added as the opposite party No.2 while the opposite party No.1 remained absent and set expart No.2 filed its written version and sworn affidavit indefence to the complainant averments and to contest the case filed the following attested Xerox documents Viz (1) Tender Notice No.24/02-03 of KMC dt.18.11.2002 (2)work order Est.No. 480/02-03 of Kurnool Municipal corporation dt 19.02.2002. In view of the sown affidavit of the opposite party No.2 the said documents are marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2.
5. The Written Version of the opposite party No.2 besides the questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainant’s case and requires the strict proof of the complainant averments. It alleges the complainant is not a consumer and hence his case is not interminable under the provisions of the C.P.Act. The complainant’s case is bad for want of statutory notice under section 685 Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act.
The complainant is neither the owner of the said house bearing No.17/6,MIG nor its tax prayer and hence having no locus standi to allege of any deficiency of service. It denies the complainant status as tenant of Bheema Rao. And also payment of any property tax by in to the said property. Indenies the complainant allegations as to the stagnation of water, non-existence of drainage of facility and road facility and road facility and inundation of rain water inside the compound wall of the said house and also the complaiant bringing the said facts by any immediate steps. It denies of any negligence of the opposite parties I safeguarding the public interest and of any non-maintainance of sanitary; conditions as contemplated under section 45 of A.P Gramapanchayat Act. It further submits that consequent to the marger of Kallur Gramapanchaya into the Kurnool Municipal Corporation no tax was paid by the tax payers of Kallur Vilagers as the A.P.Housing Board has not provided any records pertaining to the constructions and not handed over with any approval lay outs and Roads as to the maintenance of Roads and drainages the question of maintenance of the Roads and drainage doesn’t arise. It further submits that as and when the funds are available from the Government it is taking up all the necessary public works within the limits of Corporation. It further submits that it has called for Tenders for laying C.C Roads from door No.86/1 to 86/11 at Housing Board
Colony which shall be in front of the complainant’s house, at an estimated cost of Rs.2,57,000/- vide its tender notice No.24/02-03 dt 18.11.2002 and tender was also finalized and entrusted to the Municipal contractor B.A.Hammed in work order dt 19.12.2002 and the work is in progress. The competent authority to sanction the construction of the new drain is corporation and not this commissioner and hence the construction of new drains arises as and when the Corporation authorizes for the same. As the alleged house bearing No.17/6 was constructed at a lower level the necessary stops has been taken by the Owner of the said house and not the opposite party. It denies of any deficiency of service in maintenance of streets and improving the sanitary condition by engaging Dwakra groups, tractors etc., hence there being no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party the entitleness of the complainant for the reliefs sought as A.P Gramapanchayt Act is not applicable to the corporation and seeks the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of service of the opposite party as alleged and his locus-standi to file this complaint and also his entitleness for the reliefs sought.
6. The complainant except averring the opposite party not maintaining the drainage, pacca Roads and sanitary conditions did not substantiate them by filing any sworn affidavit in support of his complaint averments, nor he made any endeavour to prove the documents by filing their originals or at least their attested copies. Hence the complainant is remaining failed primafaciea his entitleness to file this case as consumer and of any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. While such is so with the complainant the Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 documents in the light of the averments of the written version of the O.P.NO.2 and his sworn affidavit are establishing all the bonafidies of the opposite party at the public. Therefore there being no merit and force in the case of the complainant is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the open bench on this the 29th day of August, 2003.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:Nill For the opposite parties:Nill
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-NILL
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Tender notice No.24/02-03 of KMC dt.18.11.2002.
Ex.B2 Work order Est.No.480/02-03 of Kurnool Municipal Corporation dt 19.12.2002.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
