Orissa

Rayagada

CC/46/2018

Sri Santosh Kumar Mohapatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The SDO, PHD - Opp.Party(s)

Self

15 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.  46/ 2018.                                  Date.    15    .     3  . 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President.

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,                                            Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

            Sri Santosh Kumar Mohapatra,   AT: Near Jagannath complex,   Po:      Rayagada,  Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha).  765 001.     …. Complainant.

            Versus.

            The  Sub-divisional Officer,  P.H. Sub-division, Rayagada.                                                                                                                                    … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps:- Set exparte.

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non rectification water bill  bearing consumer No.5722   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.  The brief facts of the case are  summarized here under.

That the complainant is a consumer  under the O.P. bearing consumer No.5722  for the period from  January, 2016 on wards   availed water connection.  But the O.P. demanded  water charges for the period from March,2008 to December, 2015  a sum of Rs.12,360/-.  During the above period  the complainant had not availed water  though there  was faulty line inter alia  no water was supplied to the house of the complainant  which   line  is now existing the O.Ps may  enquired   the fulty line.  To quash the above demand the complainant approached the O.P and has explained the actual  facts.  But till date  not heard the grievances of the complainant. In spite of  frequent  approach to the O.Ps  they have   paid deaf ear  and not heard  the  grievances of the complainant.  As   per rule  after receipt of grievance  from the complainant they should enquired about the matter and  accordingly  discharge the works.    Hence this case.  The complainant prays the forum  direct the O.Ps to  receive  Water charges  for the period from January, 2016  onwards  from the  complainant and further direct the O.Ps to quash the demand made by the O.P. towards water charges for the period  from  March, 2008 to December, 2015 a sum of Rs.12,360/- inter alia such other  relief as the  forum deems fit and proper in the best  interest of justice.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  04 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 10 months  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps. set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit.  Heard from the complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

                                                Findings.

          Undisputedly the complainant is a consumer   under the O.P. bearing consumer No.5722 (copies of the water bill is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).  Further  the complainant  is agreed  to deposit the water charges  for the period from  January, 2016. 

            The main grievance of the complainant is that  as he was not availed water due to faulty line  but the O.Ps  have  demanded  water charges without availing water through faulty  water line. Hence the complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps to  receive  Water charges  for the period from January, 2016  onwards  from the  complainant and further direct the O.Ps to quash the demand made by the O.P. towards water charges for the period  from  March, 2008 to December, 2015 .

            Further this forum observed  prior to filing   of complaint, the complainant approached the O.Ps from time to time to cancel the  water bill  as demanded  by the O.Ps for the period from March,2008 to December, 2015 without supplying water to the house premises of the complainant  a sum of Rs.12,360/- but they failed to cancel the bill which is not genuine. Hence it appears that the O.P. has been negligent and callous regarding the complaint of the complainant. So the complainant filed this C.C. case before the forum.

For better appreciation this forum relied citations which are mentioned here.

It is held and reported in Current Consumer Case 2004 page No.27 where in  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed  the redressal mechanism  established  under the Act is “not supposed to supplant but to supplement the existing judicial system”. It is well settled  principle of law that the statutory authority   should act under the provisions of the relevant statue and if they do  not   act accordingly, the Consumer Forum  have the jurisdiction because  not acting under the provisions of the statute/Act it amounts to deficiency   of service.

            Again it  is held and reported in  SCC  1994 (1) page No. 243 in the case of Lucknow Development authority  Vrs. M.K.Gupta where in the Hon’ble Apex Court observed “Consumer and Service  under the C.P. Act, 1986 that the provisions of the Act must be liberally interpreted in favour of the consumers as the enactment in question was beneficial piece of legislation while examining the meaning of the term Consumer and service.”

 

 

            That for failure to act properly  by the O.Ps. the complainant should not be deprived of his legitmate entitlement, it is to  be ensured   that the benefit to which a consumer  is eligible   are  entitled enjoy it and it should not became a distant dream.  In most of the similar  cases  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court observed  “Negligence  by  public authorities cannot be paradoned”. They should be made responsible  for the compensation  to a consumer undertaken harassment  on  account of  their behaviour.

On merit the  present case in hand the complainant is a consumer bearing No. 5722 for  utilizing the water  which was connected to the house premises of the complainant. But the same water connection was defective/faulty line  where no water was supplied for the period from from  March, 2008 to December, 2015 to the house premises of the of the complainant. Hence the complainant is  not liable to pay the water charges from  March, 2008 to December, 2015.The complainant during the course of  hearing  submitted  for the period of January,2016 he was availing water from the water  line  and he is liable to pay the water charges for the period from January, 2016 onwards.  

Having considered the entire evidence and material brought on record  and respective contentions raised by the complainant, we are of the considered opinion that the O.P has miserably failed   to establish his water charges as  demand by means of cognet and reliable evidence.  As  a consequence, we hold that the complainant is not  liable to pay the water charges for the period from from  March, 2008 to December, 2015 to the O.Ps and liable to be quashed the above demand as the complainant was not  availed the service  of the O.P.

The complainant further submitted  before the forum that the  above demand of the O.Ps are per se illegal.

Further we observed the O.Ps are not rendering proper service to the complainant establishes their callousness and whimsical attitude. This  forum feel that the services of the O.Ps  are deteriorating and does not follows   ethics.  Due to the negligent attitude of  the  O.Ps complainant deprived of   to deposit the water charges w.e.f  January, 2016 onwards.

 

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations  there  exists deficiency in service on the part of the  O.Ps which is Aliane Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.

                                                ORDER.

In Resultant the complaint petition is allowed in part on Exparte  against the O.Ps.

The  water charges demanded by the O.P. for the period from March, 2008 to December, 2015 towards  consumer No. 5722  is  not legally sustainable  inter alia demand of Rs. 12,360/- is non-est  towards faulty water connection connected to the house premises  of the complainant is  hereby quashed.

 

The  O.Ps  are hereby  ordered to receive the water charges w.e.f. January, 2016 onwards  from the complainant  bearing consumer No. 5722.  Parties are left to bear their own cost.

The complainant is directed to deposit the water charges w.e.f. January,2016 onwards in the counter of the O.P. and obtain receipt.

The O.Ps  are  ordered to comply the above directions within  30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Serve the copies of the above  order  to the parties concerned immediately free of charges.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this           15^th.   day of   March, 2019.

 

MEMBER.                                            MEMBER.                                            PRESIDENT