(Passed on 14/12/2016)

PER SHRI.B.A.SHAIKH, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.       This appeal is filed by the original complainant  against the order dated 13/08/2009 passed in consumer complaint bearing No.71/2009, by the District Forum, Chandrapur , by which the complaint has been dismissed.

2.       The facts which are not disputed in brief are as under,

          The complainant   resides  Nagbhid of  District Chandrapur.  Water connection  of her house  was disconnected by the original opposite party (short for O.P.) Grampanchyat, Nagbhid  on 22/09/2005 on the ground that  the said water connection  was taken illegally by the complainant herself  from the main water pipe line connected from the water source to the water tank. Thereupon  the O.P. on  demand of the complainant  provided separate  water connection to the complainant on 22/06/2007 from separate  drinking  water pipe line.

          However, the complainant  alleged  that her water connection  was disconnected by the O.P. on 22/09/2005 due to  political  rivalry and therefore  she suffered physical harassment and sustained loss. She therefore  claimed total  compensation of Rs. 1,56,500/-  with interest from the O.P. as specified  in detail  in the complaint.  

3.       The said complaint was resisted by the O.P. by filing reply before the Forum on the same ground  that as initially  the complainant had herself obtained  illegal water connection from the main  water pipe line which was not meant for providing  drinking water connection.  The said  illegal connection  was disconnected on 22/09/2005 by  passing  resolution  by the Grampanchyat (O.P.) on 19/09/2005 and on her application  dated 18/04/2006 by passing  resolution  on 22/04/2006 new connection was provided to her on 22/06/2007 from  separate  drinking  water pipe line. Therefore,  the  O.P.   had prayed that  the complaint may be dismissed.

4.       The Forum after  hearing both the parties  came to the conclusion that  the  complainant had illegally taken  water connection from the main pipe line of water tank and  no such water connection is given for domestic purpose from the main  line and that said main line is meant for taking water  from water source  to the water tank and then after purification of water said purified water  through drinking water pipe line is provided by giving water connection  to the residents  of the village. Therefore, the water connection of the complainant which was illegally taken from main water  pipe line was disconnected by passing resolution  dated 19/09/2005 and then another connection  was provided  to the complainant  through  drinking water pipe line  on  her application dated 18/04/2006. The Forum also observed  in the impugned order that the  complainant  produced no evidence  to show that  she was enjoying  water connection from 15 years  and  it was legal and that the  case filed  before the Civil Court by her husband  is also dismissed and  also the   Human Rights  Commission has dismissed her application on 16/02/2006.  Therefore, the Forum  dismissed the complaint  by passing the impugned order.

5.       This   appeal is thus filed by the original complainant.  Both parties already  filed their respective  Written Notes of Arguments  in this appeal which we have  perused.  We have also perused  the record of the appeal. Today  none appeared for both the parties for final hearing. However, as both  the parties  have already filed their Written Notes of Arguments  and as none had  appeared for  both the parties  on last four dates, we proceeded to decide the appeal on merit.

6.       The appellant in her Written Notes of Argument reiterated her case. She has drawn our attention  to the documents  filed in appeal by her in support of her submission that the Forum has not  considered the documents  properly  as filed on record and erroneously dismissed the complaint. She  requested  that the impugned order may be set aside and complaint may be granted.

          Appellant relied  on the  decision in the following cases.

i.        Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and other Vs. Naib Singh, [2009] CJ 1151 (Har).  In that case it was found that there is deficiency in service  on part of opposite party  by raising  illegal and unwanted  and uncalled for demand so as to deprive the poor farmer of his  right to have  the electrical connection  for which he has parted with a hefty amount. Therefore the appeal filed by the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. came to be dismissed.

ii.       Ashok Kumar Bansal (Dr) Vs. Barnala Improvement Trust and other, [2009] CJ 1163 (Chandi.).  In that case it was found that there is  deficiency in service on the part of Senior  Town Planner as it took  appropriately two years  to decide the matter and ultimately the possession was delivered  to the complainant  after a period of two years and four months  of his making  the application . Hence, the complainant was awarded compensation with cost and interest.

iii.      Pushpa Rani Sharma Vs. M.D. Bacil Pharma, (2000) NCJ (MRTP) 139.  It is observed in that case that unfair trade practice can be construed on the part of the respondent under facts and circumstances of the case and therefore the applicant has suffered financial loss.

7.       On the other hand  the respondent  in its written  notes of argument  supported the impugned order and submitted that  the appeal may be dismissed.

8.       It is seen that  the respondent  is a Grampanchyat  and it acts  as per  provisions of law.  The complainant  has produced no evidence to show that  she had legally taken water connection  from the drinking water pipe line  of the O.P. and it was continued  for last 15 years. We find no evidence to prove that  said connection was legally  taken  by  the complainant. The O.P./respondent  disconnected that supply by passing  resolution of general body on the ground that  the water connection  was illegally taken  by the complainant from the  main water pipe line  which was not  meant  for providing  drinking  water connection. It also not disputed that  there upon  complainant  submitted  application on 18/04/2006 for new  water connection  and  accordingly the O.P. passed the resolution  on 22/04/2006 and  the water connection  from separate  drinking water pipe line  was provided to her by the O.P. on 23/06/2007. Therefore, we hold that   no deficiency in service can be  attributed to the O.P. Gram panchayat

9.       It is also pertinent to note that  the water connection  was disconnected by the O.P. on 22/09/2005 but complaint was filed before the Forum on 14/05/2009. It was not filed  within two years from 22/09/2005.  Therefore,  the complaint also ought to have been  dismissed  as barred by limitation.

10.     In the result we  find that the Forum  committed no error in dismissing the complaint  for  the reasons mentioned in the impugned order. We find no  merit  in this appeal  and thus it  deserves to be dismissed.

ORDER

i.        The appeal is dismissed.

ii.       No order as to cost in appeal.

iii.      Copy of order be furnished  to both the parties, free of cost.