IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

BEFORE      Thiru.K.BASKARAN       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL  MEMBER

                      Tmt.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                              MEMBER 

F.A.NO. 430/2013

(As against the order in CC.No. 323/2012 dated 28.6.2013 on the file of     DCDRF,Coimbatore)

DATED THE  5^TH  DAY OF  SEPTEMBER 2018

1. Thirumalaiammal
2. C.Muthumani  

Both are residing at

No.3/178

Kandi Thoppu,

Nallampalli village,

Pollachi South Taluk

Coimbatore District                               ..Appellants/complainants

                                       Vs

1.The President, Nallampalli Panchayat,

2. The Commissioner

Pollachi South Panchayat Union

3. The Assistant Director

Rural Development (Panchayat)

Coimbatore

4. The District Collector

Coimbatore District                              ..Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellants/complainants          : M/s G.Arun & A.Yamuna

Counsel for the Respondents/opposite parties   : M/s T.Ravikumar

          This appeal coming on before us for hearing finally on 2.8.2018, hearing both, upon perusing the records of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore,  this commission made the following order.

 By THIRU.K.BASKARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 1.     The factual matrix culminating in this appeal is as follows:

          The unsuccessful complainants whose complaint was dismissed by the District Forum are the appellants herein. The parties are referred to here as they were arrayed before the learned District Forum, Coimbatore. The complainants had filed this complaint praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation for the mental agony suffered by them and costs alleging interallia that the complainants had applied to the 1^st opposite party which is a local body for providing water connection to their residential home and paid the installment charges of Rs.2150/-. But the water supply was not provided to the house of the complainants despite lawyer’s notice which resulted in mental agony and loss to the complainants; that a civil suit in O.S.No. 103/2002 was filed by the complainants before the learned District Munsif court at Pollachi for the relief of mandatory injunction to provide water connection to the complainants.

2.            The claim of the complainant was resisted by the 1^st opposite party, by taking a defence that they had taken sincere and effective steps to effect water connection to the house of the complainants, but due to the circumstance, beyond their control, it could not be done and the first opposite party has been taking every step to give water connection to the house of the complainants as far as possible and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party, hence the complaint deserves for dismissal.

3.       Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned District Forum has held that the materials on record would show that the opposite parties had taken efforts to complete the work besides providing water connection to the house of the complainants and hence there was no deficiency in service on their part and consequently held that the complainants were not entitled any relief and ultimately dismissed the complaint.

4. Point for consideration :-

1. Whether the complainants are entitled to any relief in the complaint?

The point :-

          The grievance of the complainants is that they had applied for drinking water connection to their house, to the opposite party which is Panchayat Board office in Nallampalli village and paid the requisite charges under Ex.A.1. but  the 1^st opposite party due to personal vendetta, refused to effect water supply connection to the house of the complainants and the other opposite parties who are superior authorities of the 1^st opposite party had not taken steps to redress the grievance of the complainants.

5.       Per contra, the simple defence of the opposite parties is that a resolution was passed in the board meeting of the 1^st opposite party for providing water supply connection to the house of the complainants and other villagers and the said work was entrusted to a contractor on tender basis. In the mean time, general election was announced to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and hence the work could not be executed and thereafter the contractor wanted escalation in the cost of execution which was refused by the 1^st opposite party and thereafter the contractor expressed his inability to execute the work and hence the job was entrusted to another person and action was initiated to forfeit the earnest money deposit made by the previous contractor.  Hence the 1^st opposite party has been taking sincere steps to provide water connection to the complainants and other residents. From the pleadings and documents available on record, it can been seen that the 1^st opposite party had passed resolution under Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2, to execute the water connection work, through one contractor and due to the intervening General Election to the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly, it could not be executed and thereafter the contactor to when the work was entrusted on tender basis expressed his inability to execute the work vide Ex.B.3, letter and thereafter the work was entrusted to one Mr.D.Tamilarasan, Spl.Assistant by the 2^nd opposite party vide his proceedings under Ex.B.7. Hence it emerges that necessary steps were taken by the opposite parties to provide water service connection to the house of the complainants and the same could not be executed due to the intervening General Election and the unwillingness of the contractor who was entrusted with the job. Hence we do not find any material even to remotely suggest any malafide intention on the part of the 1^st opposite party in delaying the matter. The learned District Forum has recorded a similar finding and do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding.       

6.       As we have held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, it follows that the complainants are not entitled to any relief in this complaint. Further as contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the provision of water supply connection for domestic consumption is statutory function of the local body and the same could not be construed as service for consideration within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as held by the National Commission, New Delhi in 2003(3) CPR 76 National Commission S.Jaffer Ali Vs The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Municipality Corporation and others

          Hence we hold that the complainants are not entitled to any relief and this point is answered accordingly.

          In the result, the appeal fails, and the same is dismissed.

           No order as to costs in this appeal.

S.M.Latha Maheswari                                                  K.Baskaran                 

MEMBER                                                       PRESIDING JUDL.MEMBER