MRS RAJASHREE AGARWALLA, MEMBER-
Deficiency in service in respect of non-refund of security amount after disconnection of water supply to the Complaint’s premises are the allegations arrayed against ops.
2. Complaint in brief reveals that to get a water supply connection under Rural water supply scheme complainant deposited Rs. 1000/- on July-2010 and was paying water-tax regularly till-2015. Due to technical defect the water flow is blocked from 2015. The matter was informed to VLW and sarpanch of the concerned Panchayat, but no action was taken in this respect. It is revealed from the complaint petition that the water supply was disconnected through the Panchayat and when the complainant applied for refund of security amount, OP-1 replied that Complainant has to pay 18 months water tax, then the refund of security will be made. Complainant being aggrieved on such illegal demand of water tax and non-refund of security amount filed this complaint with prayer seeking direction of this Forum to Ops for refund of security amount with cost of litigation Rs. 2000/-.
3. Being noticed Op No.1, VLW, Jamadhar Gram Panchayat filed written version challenging the maintainability of complaint, as the same is not maintainable as per the provisions of C.P. Act. Op No.1 in his para-wise replies averred that complainant had actually deposited Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) as security deposit and had deposited water tax up to March-2015. The water connection of the Complainant disconnected on dt. 25/9/2016 due to technical defect. It is also averred that the allegation of deposit of Rs. 1000/- is not a fact and after adjustment of deposited security amount of Rs. 500/-, the Complainant has to pay balance Rs. 400/- towards arrear outstandings of the Complainant and under the circumstances the Complaint is liable to be dismissed as a false and fabricated case has been filed against Op No.1.
Though Notice was served to Executive Engineer Rural water supply and Sanitation , Kendrapara by Regd. Post with A.D. did not prefer to appear into dispute, hence set ex-parte by this Forum vide order No.9 dtd. 9/5/17.
4. Heard the Complainant and case of the Op No.1, V.L.W., Jamadhar Gram Panchayat on merit as non-appears on his behalf on the date of hearing and ex-parte hearing against Op No.2. Complainant to substantiate his case filed documents which are marked as Exhibit-A to G. On the otherhand, the documents filed by Op no.1 are marked as Exhibit-1 to 3. The admitted facts of the case are that Complainant was availing Rural water supply connection, where the responsibility of new connection, collection of monthly dues and supply of water are administrated by the village-Panchayat. The allegation of the Complainant are based on as complainant was not availing any water supply from the year 2015 and when Complainant asked for return of security amount of Rs. 1000/- , Op No.1 instead of refunding the amount illegally demanded to pay water surcharges for a period of 18 months. Contesting the same Op No.1’s plea are that as the Complainant has deposited only Rs. 500/-towards security amount not Rs. 1000/- as alleged and the water to Complainant’s residence was disconnected on dt. 25/9/2016, prior to that Complainant has never intimated the fact of non-supply of water supply surcharges Rs.400/- after adjusting the security amount of Rs. 500/-.
Complainant on payments of security amount filed acknowledgement receipt of Rs. 1000/- (Exhibit-A) and money receipt dt. 25/9/2010 showing payment of Rs. 500/- as security amount (Exhibit-G). Both the receipts bears the seal and signature of one person in the official capacity of Sarpanch, Jamdhar Gram Panchayat. Though Op No.1 admits the payment dt. 25/9/2010 amount of Rs. 500/-, (Exhibit-2), but denies on receiving of the amount of RS. 1000/- on dt. 9/7/2010. Usually it is not expected that an applicant like consumer can manufactured or tampered a document(Exhibit-G) for an amount of Rs. 1000/-, when the same is received by the officials of Op No.1 with seal
signature and the process of receipt of the disputed amount and non-deposit of Rs. 1000/- by complainant on dt. 1/7/2010 as denied by Op No.1 is overruled by this Forum.Further, there is no reason to disbelieve the two money receipts produced by the Complainant showing payment of Rs. 1,500/- in toto in two occasions i.e, on dt. 01/07/2010 & dt. 25/09/2010, when same is accepted and receipts were granted by the same person on his official capacity as ‘Sarpanch’. Hence, we are of the unanimous view that Complainant has paid Rs. 1000/- (Exhibit-A) along with application for water supply on dt. 01/07/2010 and Rs. 500/- on dt. 25/09/2010 as security amount (which is also reveled from Exhibit-3). In addition to this, we are not sure whether the amount deposited with application fee is refundable or not? But as the Op No.1 has not approached this Forum with a clean hand and the official functioning regarding receipt of amounts creat doubts and the benefit goes to the Complainant. We arrive into a conclusion that Complainant paid Rs. 1500/- to Op No.1 for availing water supply and the said amount is refundable to complainant when the water supply is disconnected.
Now, the second question to be decided by this Forum that, in connection to disconnection of water supply effected on dt. 25/9/2016 as reported by one Prabhakar Ojha and as per the version of Op no.1. But Complainant’s case is that water supplied is blocked from April-2015 and it is alleged that Op No.1 is not entitled to collect the water surcharge or after April-2015. In support of the same complainant filed two Xerox copies of letters, one letter addressed to the B.D.O, Kendrapara dtd. 8/7/2015 and another letter addressed to the Sarpanch, Jamadhar Gram Panchayat dt. 18/8/2015 narrating the grievance of non-availability of water supply. During course of hearing Complainant produced some news items reported in Oriya daily describing the facts of non-availability of water supply. As per letters addressed to the authorities are not acknowledged and denied by OpNo.1, we, can’t held that Complainant’s water supply was blocked from April-2015 Moreso, the report of the Prabhakar Behera, (Exhibit F & Exhibit-I) who disconnected the connection of water supply are contradictory to each other. In Exhibit-F, said Prabhakar Behera reported that, on his knowledge no water was supplied, till 25/9/2016. The said documents(Exhibit-F) is produced by Complainant. The same Prabhakar Behera in his report (Exhibit-I) produced by Op No.1 is silent regarding any knowledge of water supply’ as reported in Exhibit-F, that apart said Prabhakar Behera is neither made a party to the dispute nor examined to Judge the authority of his version. So, when the admitted date of disconnection of water supply is dt. 25/9/16, in our opinion the complainant has to pay to the water surcharges upto dt. 25/9/2016. Now it is clear from the version of Op No.1 and Xerox copy of Account ledger (Exhibit-3) the complainant has to pay Rs. 400/- as an arrear outstanding dues of water supply charge after adjustment of the security amount of Rs. 500/-. It also appears that in toto complainant has to pay Rs. 900/- towards arrear outstandings of water supply. As, we have observed earlier, the Complainant has deposited Rs. 1500/- (Rs. one thousand Five hundred only) as security/ caution money before Op No.1 and after deducting Rs. 900/-(Rs Nine hundred Only) the balance amount remains Rs. 600/- (RS. Six hundred only), which is legitimate dues of the complainant to be received from the Op no.1. As complainant has not submit any specific relief against Op No.2 Executive Engineer, R.W.S.S. we freed Op No.2 any such liability of deficiency in service. Op No.1, in his written statement challenges the maintainability of Complaint, which is very formal in nature and as the amount involved in the disputed amount is meager one, we don’t want to discuss the maintainability of the Complaint on its totality.
Accordingly, as per the observations made above, it is directed that Op No.1 will refund the amount of Rs. 600/- (Rs. Six hundred only) to the Complainant with 6% simple rate of interest calculating from dt. 1/11/2016 to till its realization. The order is to be carried out within one month of receipt of this Order, failing 9% interest will be charged for the delayed period.
Complaint is allowed in part without cost on merit against Op No.1.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 30th Day of June, 2017.
List of Exhibits on behalf of the Complainant
Sl. No. Exhibit Document Date Marked with Remarks
objection or
without objection
- Ext.A Acknowledgement ( 9.6.17) Without objection
of Sarpanch,Jamadhar G.P.
dtd. 1.7.2010
- Ext.B Attested Xerox copy( 9.6.17) -do-
of money receipt dtd.7.3.15.
- Ext.C Attested Xerox copy of (9.6.17)
Money receipt dtd.3.3.14 -do-
- Ext.D Attested Xerox copy of (9.6.17)
Money receipt dtd.13.3.13 -do-
- Ext.E Attested Xerox copy of(9..6.17)
Money receipt dtd.2.8.11 -do-
- Ext.F Attested Xerox copy of (9.6.17)
of disconnection receipt
Dtd.25.9.16. –do-
- Ext.G Attested Xerox copy of (9.6.17)
Of money receipt of
Security deposit dtd.25.9.10. –do-
List of Exhibits on behalf of the OP No.1
Sl. No. Exhibit Document Date Marked with Remarks
objection or
without objection
- Ext.1 Attested copy of ( 9.6.17) Without objection
Disconnection receipt
Dtd.25.09.16.
- Ext.2 Attested Xerox copy( 9.6.17) -do-
of money receipt dtd.25.9.10
towards security deposit.
- Ext.3 Attested Xerox copy of (9.6.17)
Account ledger -do-
