Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, H.P.
Complaint Case No.38/2009
Date of Institution.15-1-2009
Date of Decision 29-6-2009
Sh. Tek Singh son of Sh.Devi Singh resident of village Mahlnu , Post Office Chunahan, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.
…Complainant
V/S
1. Executive Engineer, I and PH Department Baggi, Post Office Baggi, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.
2. Yog Raj son of Sh.Devi Singh R/o Mahlnoo, Post Office Chunahan, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.
..Opposite parties
For the complainant Sh. N.C. Bharti advocate
Opposite parties Exparte
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
ORDER.
This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties. The complainant averred that there is a water tank of the opposite party No.1 at village Rathoa /Mahlnoo near the house of Sh. K.C.Sharma retired SDO and from this water tank there is a general supply of water to said village Mahlnoo and other villages . The complainant alleged that he had been supplied water facility from main pipe at his own cost and he had spent Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of purchasing the G.I. pipes from the house of Ganga Singh for his personal tap which was used for providing connection to his premises. The complainant further averred that he had been regularly paying the monthly bill to the opposite party No.1. The complainant alleged that the opposite party No.2 in connivance with the water guard and fitter of the area concerned got water connection from personal connection of the complainant without his consent and permission as a result of which the water supply to his premises has been obtained wrongly and illegally. The complainant further alleged that the opposite party No.2 had already been provided water connection from public tap which is being used by him so as to meet out his daily water need The complainant had further alleged that due to deficiency in service of the opposite party No.1, he has been deprived from water facility in connivance with the opposite party No.2 . The complainant asked time and again the opposite party No.1 to restore the water facility and disconnect the illegal connection of the opposite party No.2 from the connection of the complainant but they have not cared.. The complainant also served the opposite party No.2 with legal notice but the same was not responded .With these allegations, the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite party No.1 to disconnect the water connection provided to the opposite party No.2 from the personal connection of the complainant and water facility be restored to the complainant .Compensation and costs of complaint had also been sought.
2 The opposite party No.1 filed reply and resisted the complaint . The opposite party No.1 had admitted that there is a storage tank of the opposite party No.1 near a house in village Malhnoo of LWSS Kot Chunahan for village Malhnoo. The opposite party No.1 had denied that the complainant has been supplied water from main line which is in fact a distribution line . It has been pleaded that private connection had been given to the opposite party No.2 from the pipe line of the department . It has been denied that the complainant had been deprived of drinking water facility. It has been denied that public tap has been provided to the opposite party No.2 and averred that the public tap was provided to residents near the public tap . The complainant had been provided regular supply of drinking water . It has further been averred that regular supply of water is being made to the complainant and no illegal private connection has been given to the respondent No.2 and hence the complainant has no cause of action to approach this Forum. Receipt of the legal notice had not been denied and further pleaded that same had been replied . The opposite party had prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it. Thereafter no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.1 and was proceeded agaisnt exparte on 5-5-2009.The opposite party No.2 had also failed to contest the complaint and was proceeded against exparte .
3. The complainant had filed rejoinder reiterating the contents of the complaint and denying those contrary to the complaint.
4. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the entire record. The case of the complainant is that in connivance with the water guard and fitter of the area concerned, the opposite party No.2 got water connection from personal connection of the complainant without his consent and permission. The opposite party No.2 had failed to contest the complaint and was proceeded against exparte. However, the opposite party No.1 i.e. Executive Engineer I and PH Department Baggi had filed reply wherein it has been averred that private connection of the opposite party No.2 has been given from the pipe line of the Department and it has been submitted that no illegal private connection had been given to the opposite party No.2. Therefore , in these circumstance it was for the complainant to establish by leading cogent evidence that the opposite party No.1 had provided illegal water connection to the opposite party No.2 from private connection of the complainant and as a result of which the complainant is not getting adequate and proper supply of drinking water. However, no satisfactory evidence has been placed on record by the complainant to this effect. Rather letter dated 19-8-2008 Annexure R-1 filed by the opposite party No.1 shows that there is a personal dispute between the complainant on one hand and the opposite party No.2 on the other hand with respect to the water connection . In the aforesaid letter Annexure R-1 Pradhan Gram Panchayat had mentioned that water connection to the opposite party No.2 had been sanctioned by the Department and the same had been provided from pipe line of the department and the objection in this respect which has been raised by the complainant is baseless. He further mentioned that there is a dispute between the complainant and the opposite party No.2 with respect to the water connection. Therefore, from the perusal of the record it appears that there is a personal dispute between the complainant and the opposite party No.2 with respect to the water connection and the opposite party No.1 has been unnecessarily dragged into litigation by the complainant who specifically averred in its reply that private connection to the opposite party No.2 has been given from pipe line of the Department and no illegal private connection has been given to the opposite party No.2. In our opinion , the complainant has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove and establish that any illegal water connection has been given to the opposite party No.2 from personal connection of the complainant. Therefore , in the absence of any satisfactory evidence on record the opposite party No.1 cannot be directed to disconnect the water connection given to the opposite party No.2 In the facts and circumstances of the present complaint , the complainant has failed to prove and establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
5 In view of above discussion, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint deserves dismissal and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs
6 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.
7 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced (Sushil Kukreja) President
29-6-2009
*DKM* ( Lal Singh ) ( Alaknanda ) Members