In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.144/2011
1) Sri Bishnupada Dutta Gupta,
18/C, Kabir Road, P.S. Tollygunge, Kolkata-26. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The Mayor, The Kolkata Municipal Corporation,
5, S.N. Banerjee Road, Kolkata-13.
2) The Commissioner, The Kolkata Municipal Corporation,
5, S.N. Banerjee Road, Kolkata-13.
3) The D.C. (Water Supply),
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation,
5, S.N. Banerjee Road, Kolkata-13.
4) The Councilor, Ward No.87,The Kolkata Municipal Corporation,
Southern Avenue Bulevard, Health Unit,
K.M.C. Kolkata-29, P.S. Tollygunge. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 21 Dated 30-05-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant is one of the co-owners of the two storied building situated at premises no. 18/C, Kabir Road, P.S. Tollygunge, Kolkata-26 which is within ward no.87 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
Though the complainant has been regularly paying corporation taxes including water tax for a long time the complainant has not getting proper supply of corporation tap water.
The complainant through the letters of his ld. advocate placed his serious water problem before the Hon’ble Mayor, the Commissioner, the D.C. (Water), the Councilor of ward no.87 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, but without any positive reply.
At last on 4.3.11 having no reasonable steps from the authority of the KMC notice u/s 586 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 was served upon the Mayor of the KMC, the Commissioner of KMC as well as upon the D.C.(Water) and upon the Councilor of ward no.87 of the KMC with the prayer to take proper steps.
But the KMC is doing nothing to solve the problem of water supply of the complainant, the complainant has no other alternative than to spend a considerable amount of money every month for collection of water from outside and thereby he has been facing a serious problem which is both mental and financial in nature. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
All the four o.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that the complainant is one of the co-owners of the two storied building situated at premises no. 18/C, Kabir Road, P.S. Tollygunge, Kolkata-26 which is within ward no.87 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and though the complainant has been regularly paying corporation taxes including water tax for a long time the complainant has not getting proper supply of corporation tap water.
It is seen from the record that complainant through the letters of his ld. advocate placed his serious water problem before the Hon’ble Mayor, the Commissioner, the D.C. (Water), the Councilor of ward no.87 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, but without any positive reply.
We further find that on 4.3.11 having no reasonable steps from the authority of the KMC notice u/s 586 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 was served upon the Mayor of the KMC, the Commissioner of KMC as well as upon the D.C.(Water) and upon the Councilor of ward no.87 of the KMC with the prayer to take proper steps.
But the KMC is doing nothing to solve the problem of water supply of the complainant, the complainant has no other alternative than to spend a considerable amount of money every month for collection of water from outside and thereby he has been facing a serious problem which is both mental and financial in nature.
In view of the above findings and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find that o.ps. had sufficient deficiency in service being service providers to their consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed to enlarge the radius of ferule to the extent it requires on the basis of technical opinion of o.ps. to ensure adequate supply of water to the complainant on payment of requisite fees payable by the complainant. O.ps. are also jointly and/or severally directed to assess the amount payable by the complainant and to inform the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order and complainant, thereafter, shall, pay the said sum within 15 days and entire process has to be completed within 60 days from this day.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
