CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT UNION vs S.M.PACHIYAPPAN

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 8 November 1993 · Citation: 1994 1 CPC 632 : 1994 1 CPJ 307 : 1994 3 CPR 220

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.A.Kader , R.N.Manickam , Ramani Mathuranayagam J.
RESULT
Appeal partly allowed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 431 words
1.

THE appeal arises out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Salem dated 7.7.93 in O.P. 92/91. THE first opposite party is the appellant.

2.

THE complainants are residents of Saminaickanpatti Panchayat in Omalur Taluk, Salem District. THE Panchayat has collected Rs. 500/- from each of the complainant; and given individual house connection. THE complainants receiving water in their taps till 29.8.91 when suddenly the supply of water has been stopped. Hence this complaint. THE opposite party has entered appearance before the District Forum but has not filed counter even though they were given 26 hearings. THE District Forum accepted the case of the complainants and directed the opposite party to restore the water connection within a month failing which to suffer S.I. for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- . It is this order that is challenged in the appeal. It may at once be pointed out that the default sentence imposed upon the appellant is untenable in law. No such composite order can be passed. The default sentence has therefore, to be set aside.

On merits, we find no ground to interfere with the order of the District Forum. It is admitted that the President of the Panchayat of Saminaickanpatti has collected Rs. 500/- from each of the complainants and provided house connection, and the complainants have been receiving water in their taps till 29.8.91, when all of a sudden, the supply of water to individual taps has been stopped by the opposite party. The contention of the opposite party that the opposite party has no power to give individual house connection and hence the disconnection was effected cannot be accepted. The opposite party has collected Rs. 500/- from each complainant and has been supplying water till 29.8.91 and there was no need or necessity to disconnect the supply of water when all of a sudden. What is more important is that the opposite party has not put forward this contention before the District Forum and has chosen to remain absent and has been set ex-parte. It is also not the case of the opposite party that there is water scarcity and individual house connections cannot be supplied water. The order of the District Forum directing the opposite party to restore the connection does not call for interference.

3.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part, the order of the District Forum imposing the default sentence on the opposite party is set aside, in other respects, the order of the District Forum is confirmed. No costs. Appeal partly allowed.