BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 31st day of May, 2007
C.C. No.167/2006
U. Madanna Alies P.U. Madana,
S/o Peddaiah,
R/o H.No. 76/111-46-1-1,
Geethanagar, Kurnool. ... COMPLAINANT
Verses
The Municipal Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation,
Kurnool. .. OPPOSITE PARTY
This complaint coming on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri.B.Ravi Kantha Raju, Advocate, Kurnool for Complainant and Sri.D.Yella Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite Party upon the perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, President
C.C.No.167/2006
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P. Act., seeking direction on the opposite party to provide tap connection to the compliant house, pay Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony and cost alleging that the opposite party has sanctioned tap connection to his house vide WUCT No.1900 dated 05-04-2006 collecting Rs.12,000/- under Below Poverty Line Scheme. In pursuance of said order, even though the complainant procured necessary material and got dug necessary pits engaging labour for Rs.1,5000/- to facilitate the giving of tap connection, the opposite parties staff declined the provide the tap connection to the complainants house alleging the complainant has contested the earlier Municipal Election on Telugudesham Party side and the approaches of eh complainant made to the opposite party in this regard directly, through the District Collector and Legal Notice dated 17-06-2006 did not bear any fruit. The said conduct of the opposite party is not providing tap connection collecting necessary fees is amounting to deficiency of service.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to the case of the complainant the opposite party has caused its appearance through its counsel and contested the case filing written version denying its liability to the complainants claim and the alleged cause of action.
3. The written version of the opposite party even though admit the sanction of tap connection to the complainant house, but alleges giving of tap connection to the complainant house on 10-12-2006 with the Police Assistance, as there was some local opposition, and also obtained an acknowledgement from the complainants son in token of giving tap connection. It de-nies all other averments as to allege in al-ert action on its partIt disputes the status of consumer to the complainant and also cause of action as the interruption to the tap connection was caused by persons of that locality after 10-12-2006 on account of their personal differences with complainant and the complainant reporting to the Police on that. It lastly alleges that the claim of Rs50,000 as compensation as baseless and so seeks dismissal of the complaint with its costs.
4. In substantiation of the contention while the complainants side taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 besides to its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its case, the opposite party has taken reliance on Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 beside to the sworn affidavit of P.Ananda Rao, Municipal Engineer.
5. Hence the point of consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and their by liability of the opposite party for the claim made in complaint.
6. The Ex.A1 is the order issued by the opposite party on 05-04-2006 sanctioning tap connection to the house of the complainant in Door No.76/11-46-1-I, Geetha Nagar, Kunool. The Ex.A2 is Form No.III of the opposite party acknowledging there under Rs.1,210/- as fees received from complainant for sanctioning tap connect ion. There being no controversy as to the issual of said sanction and receipt in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 respectively they requires any more proofs as to the facts its contents denotes.
7. The Ex.A3 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 17-10-2006 caused on opposite party at the instructions of the complainant. It alleges deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in-spite of every cooperation from the complainant side, by its evasive conduct in providing tap connection to the complainant house and the opposite party paying a deaf ear to the endorsement of the District Collector even. The said notice in-spite of its service on the opposite party was not even replied by the opposite party to discredit the truth therein.
8. In the pleadings, sworn affidavit and reply to the interrogatories caused, the opposite party allege its giving tap connection to the complainant house on 10-12-2006 with the Police Assistance on account of local opposition and objection for providing tap connection to the complainant house and the tampering of the tap connection thereafter by the persons of side locality who were bearing grudge on the complainant for his non contribution to the pipe line they have got out of their contribution, and the complainant reporting to Police in this regard and the readiness of the opposite party to restore the tap connection if necessary reconnection fees is paid by the complainant..
9. But the opposite party side did neither substantiate from any of its office records as to the providing of the tap connection to the complainants house as alleged nor it issued any demand notice as to the collection of any monthly tap tariff nor as to the so call local opposition and the opposite party providing tap connection to the complainants house with the Police Assistance and the local persons there after interrupting the tap connection and the complainant reporting on its to the Police etc. Hence all the said defences of the opposite party side appears to be novelic inventions without any of its substantiation to lay any reliance on its defence.
10. The Ex.AB2 is a scribed paper without date merely envisaging therein H.no.76/111-46-1-I and tap connection to it and a mere signature a U.Shekar. The opposite party side allege it as an acknowledgement issued by the complainants son in token of the fact of the opposite party giving tap connection to the complainants house. The opposite party side did place any such cogent material to believe that signatory of the Ex.B2 is son of complainant especial when the name of the complainant is P.U.Madanna the signatory Ex.B2 is a mare U.Shekar. In the absences of any cogent substantiating material to the effect that the signatory of the Ex.B2 is non else then the son of the complainant it remains very hard to believe the Ex.B2 as any valid acknowledgement obtained in token of the opposite party giving tap connection to the complainants house.
11. While Ex.B1 G.O.Ms.No.303 is creating a provision for providing house service tap connection to the persons below poverty line on payment of Rs.1,200/- per connection and the fact of entertaining the complainants application in that line being admitted by the opposite party side that too receiving necessary connection fees as envisaged in the Ex.A2 receipt, in the absence of the any positive office record material from the opposite party side as to giving tap connection on 10-12-2006 as alleged to the complainants house, the said conduct of opposite party is amounting to a clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
12. As the opposite party collected amount shown in Ex.A2 for rendering the service of giving tap connection as contemplated under Ex.B1 there appears any substance in the opposite party stand of denying the status of the consumer to the complainant and thereby its questioning.
13. Before entertaining the application of the complainant it self the opposite party has to work out the feasibility or otherwiseness in providing tap connection to the complainants house taking all relevant factors into consideration.
14. Hence the alleged theory of local opposition to the tap connection to the complainants house and their subsequent interruption to the tap connection to the complainant cannot be taken shelter of by the opposite party side. Therefore the opposite party cannot disown its liability for the deficiency of service in ensued by its lapsive and evasive conduct towards the complaints genuine request.
15. The complainant claims an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony he suffered at the deficient conduct of the opposite party. Except claiming as such the complainant has not placed any such cogent material to assess the justifiability in said claim. In the eye of law the compensation entitled to an aggrieved must be a mere just one and not otherwise as the concept of compensation is not to make enrich setting unreasonable claim but just one which is warranted in the circumstances peculiar to each case. As the Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 notices nowhere taken mention that he was deprived of providing the tap connection in-spite of its due sanction vide Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and Ex.B1, on political party consideration their appears any truth in said depravation an account of political reasons and thereby acquiring any such serious deficiency of service with any political manafidies attracting the liability of the opposite party to the said abnormal claim of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore in the circumstances of the case as deprivation in providing tap connection being not a politically motivated and the status of the complainant being below poverty line a sum of Rs.1,000/- appear to be a proper and just compensation for the suffered mental agony and the deficient conduct of the opposite party. As the opposite party by its evasive conduct driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal, the complainant is entitled to a costs of Rs.1,000/- at the liability of opposite party.
16. Consequently, in conclusion of the above discussion the compliant is allowed directing the opposite party to provide the sanctioned tap connection to the complainants house and also pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs to the complainant within a fortnight of the receipt of this order. In default the opposite party shall be liable to pay Rs.2,400/- for not providing the tap connection and the amount of compensation costs awarded supra with 9% interest from the date of said default till realization.
Dictated to the Computer Operatpr, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us Open bench on this the 31st day of May 2007.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant: Nil For the Opposite Parties: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Sanction order for Tap of Municipal Corporation, Kurnool
dated 05-04-2006.
Ex.A2 Form No.III as to receipt of Rs.1,210/-.
Ex.A3 Office copy of the legal notice dated 17-10-2006 along with its postal receipts and acknowledgement.
Ex.A4 Office copy of amended to legal notice with postal receipt of acknowledgement.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Attested Xerox copy of G.O.Ms.No.303 dated 03-08-2004 of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Department.
Ex.B2 Letter of U.Shekar.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Sri.B.Ravi Kantha Raju, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri.D.Yella Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
