Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/152/2014

J. DHRAMARAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

V.VAVIPALAYAM PANCHAYAT, THE PRESIDENT - Opp.Party(s)

S. NATARAJAN

11 Mar 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

            Tmt. Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI  ... MEMBER

 

F.A. No.152 of 2014

 

(Against the Order, dated 09.01.2014, passed by the

DCDRF, Coimbatore,  in C.C. No.197/2013)

 

                                 Orders pronounced on:  11.03.2022

J.Dharmaraj,

S/o.Joseph,

2/52 Kottampalayam,

Nathagoundampalayam Post,

Vavipalayam Village, Palladam Taluk,

Tiruppur District.                 ... Appellant/Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. The President,

V.Vavipalayam Panchayat,

Panchayat Office,

Kethanur Post, Palladam Taluk.

 

2. Public Information Officer,

Deputy Block Development

             Officer (Panchayat),

Pongalur, Palladam Taluk.

 

3. The District Collector,

District Collector Office,

Palladam Road, Tiruppur.    ...Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

             Counsel for Appellant      : M/s.V.Balaji

             Counsel for Respondents : No representation.

          This Appeal came up for final hearing on 10.02.2022 and, after hearing the arguments and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. - President

             The appellant herein challenges the Order, dated 09.01.2014, passed by the DCDRF, Coimbatore, in C.C. No.197 of 2013, whereby, the said complaint filed by him before the District Forum came to be dismissed as not maintainable.

 

             2.  On a perusal of the complaint filed before the District Forum, we fail to get any good point/ground there-from as to the cause of action, since it is, although verbose, completely vague, bald and bereft of material particulars, however, to the extent possible, we have culled out the facts below by weeding out the manifold irrelevant details.

             The complainant, a retired Police Constable belonging to Adi-Dravida Community and a resident of Kottampalayam for the past 20 years, had requested the 1^st OP/Panchayat for providing water connection to his residence by paying a sum of Rs.910/- under receipt on 14.08.2007.  Subsequently, on the demand made by the Writer, a further sum of Rs.500/- was paid under voucher.  Even after such payment, since water connection was not given, he was frequently enquiring the Panchayat Staff and, at one time, the Panchayat President/opposite party No.1 offensively scolded the complainant by mentioning his caste name.  Although he made a complaint in that regard to the District Collector/Opposite Party No.3, no action was taken against the 1^st OP. 

        Further, on 10.08.2012, he filed an Application under the RTI Act to know the fate of his application for water connection, but, the authority concerned/2^nd OP did not reply to the same.  Since the above conduct of the Opposite Parties caused mental agony to the complainant, he filed the complaint before the District Forum, seeking a direction against the Opposite Parties for a total compensation of Rs.5,91,800/- under various heads, as mentioned therein.

 

             3. Denying the allegations made in the complaint, the 1^st OP filed a written version, wherein, among other things, it is stated that, for getting water connection, the complainant had to pay Rs.1410/- towards connection charges, whereas, he had paid only Rs.910/- and the balance amount is yet to be paid; that no such incident of OP No.1 scolding the complainant by mentioning his caste name had ever taken place, thus, it is a total falsehood; that the intention behind filing of the complaint is only to harass the officials with false allegations; and that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties, however, in the event of the complainant making out proper Application and paying the entire charges, the Panchayat is willing to provide water connection; hence, the complaint may be dismissed as devoid of any merit.

 

             4. The complainant and the 1^st Opposite Party filed their respective proof affidavits before the District Forum.  While 40 documents were marked by the complainant as Exs.A1 to A40, no document was marked by the Opposite Parties.  The District Forum, by the impugned order, dated 09.01.2014, dismissed the complaint as not maintainable, hence, the present appeal by the complainant.

 

5. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant is in regard to the grievance of the appellant that, when he contacted the 1^st respondent to know the progress regarding provision of water connection, he abusively scolded him by mentioning his caste name and further, no action was taken against him despite complaining the incident to the 3^rd respondent.The said submission cannot be considered by us, since adjudication upon those allegations does not fall within the purview of this Consumer Commission and it is for the appellant to work out his remedy before proper authorities under the Act concerned.

 

6. It is next submitted that water connection has not been provided, thereby, there is deficiency in service. In this regard, the stand of the Panchayat/R1 needs to be adverted to herein that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the appellant and the Panchayat, that the appellant did not pay the full charges and that, if he makes out proper application and comes forward to pay the entire charges, they are prepared to provide water connection.So pointing out, we intend to add that, to vent out such grievance, the remedy of the appellant lies elsewhere and definitely, not before this Commission.

 

7. It is ultimately stated on behalf of the appellant that his RTI Application, dated 10.08.2012, addressed to the 2^nd respondent was not responded to and hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of the said authority. When admittedly the appellant filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act aggrieved over non-furnishing of reply to his RTI Application by the 2^nd respondent and the said appeal is said to be under consideration, his aimless endeavour in seeking this Commission to delve into such issue/grievance, which is actionable only before the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act and not before this Commission, would clearly amount to ‘forum shopping’. On the whole, we are of the opinion that this is a clear paradigm of vexatious litigation, as there is no nexus or link between the grievances projected and the jurisdiction in which the issues are sought to be litigated.In those circumstances, even though this is a fit case to impose heavy costs, we refrain from doing so considering the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen said to be suffering from multiple ailments.

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed, by confirming the order, dated 09.01.2014, passed by the DCDRF, Coimbatore, in C.C. No.197 of 2013.No costs.

    

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                             R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT.

 

Index    : Yes  /  No.

ISM/TNSCDRC/Orders/Chennai/March/2022.