West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/39/2016

Shree Nemai Chandra Mondal, S/O Lt. Gour Ch. Mondal. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Chairman, Mahestala Municipality. - Opp.Party(s)

Debesh Halder.

28 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _39_ OF ___2016_

 

DATE OF FILING : 6.5.2016                         DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  28.02.2017

 

Present                         :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :   Sharmi Basu

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT        :     Shree Nemai Chandra Mondal,son of Late Gour Chandra Mondal of 3-No Chandi Tala Lane, Shyampur, Budge Budge, Maheshtala, Kolkata- 141.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :     1. The Chairman, Maheshtala Municipality, Maheshtala, Kolkata-141.

                                                 2.    The Executive Officer, Maheshtala Municipality, Kolkata – 141.

                                          

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President

This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant on the ground that  he is a bonafide tax payer of water tax and by which the O.P issued a receipt for the month of 2007 to 2011 at a sum of Rs.1260/-. So, complainant is a consumer and he applied for water supply to the municipality. It has claimed that although O.Ps are satisfied with the documents and supply line was installed in his premises but flow of water was irregular and faint. Inspite of intimation O.ps did not take any steps. Hence, this case praying for direction upon the O.ps to give proper quantity of water to the petitioners and compensation of Rs.4 lacs , litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- etc.

The O.P Maheshtalal Municipality filed written statements and denied the allegations leveled against them it is the positive case of the O.P that after getting information from the complainant regarding insufficient supply of water ,the Ward Councilor along with his Engineer and went to the house of the complainant for inspection and requested the complainant to get the ferule washed at his own cost as well as inner pipe line of his house but the complainant did not respond and inspite of that complainant openly expressed that he will not wash the pipeline and ferule at his own cost. So, the O.P claimed that Municipal Authority always tried to give best services but if complainant failed to avail the same the case be dismissed.

Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps or not.

                                                            Decision with reasons

It is interesting to point out that after filing the complaint case complainant was once present on 16.5.2016 through Ld. Advocate and prays for time for admission hearing and thereafter on 17.5.2016 complaint was admitted. But thereafter absent on call on several dates i.e. 20.6.2016, 27.7.2016, 23.8.2016 and fact remains O.P files written version along with the copy but none appears to collect the said copy. Thereafter, complainant was shocked but complainant as usual is absent. Accordingly case is taken up for argument on the basis of the available documents ,particularly when written version already filed by the O.P as well as BNA.

We have perused the documents annexed in the complaint and find that complainant already paid Rs.1260/- to the O.Ps for water supply but the O.Ps has specifically mentioned in their written version that Municipal Councilor along with the P.A and the Engineer visited the house of the complainant on 28.8.2015 and advised the complainant to wash the ferule and inner pipe line .But complainant did not take any step in this regard.  

It is well known to us that Ferule and water pipe line of the complainant’s house is required to be washed out at the cost of the complainant. But if complainant failed to do the same how he will get sufficient water. It is not the headache of the Municipality to wash out the same at the cost of public money. So, we find that complainant fled away after filing the case as he was aware that he will not be able to prove the same. So , this type of complaint against the Municipality may not crop up unnecessary and public body should not disturb by any person whoever may be. It should be mentioned here that the performance of the Consumer Court is a judicial proceedings in view of section 13(5) of the C.P Act, 1986. So, that proceedings cannot be a mockery or puppet in the hand of this type of complainant.

With that observation, it is

                                                                        Ordered

That application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant is dismissed in lemini against the O.P on contest.

 

Let a plain copy of this judgment be handed over to the parties free of cost.

 

                                                       Member                                                                President

Dictated and corrected by me

                               

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

                                               

Ordered

That application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant is dismissed in lemini against the O.P on contest.

 

Let a plain copy of this judgment be handed over to the parties free of cost.

 

                                                       Member                                                                President