JAI DEEP KUMAR SHARMA vs Nagar Palika

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.8.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Rampur in Complaint Case No. 39 of 1992.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant is the owner of house situated in Mohalla Shirin Mian and is assessed to water tax at the rate of Rs. 586/- per annum. Nagar Palika, Bilaspur wanted to construct 150 shops on the slope of the P.W.D. Road known as Rampur-Kichhna Road on the portion which falls in front of the house of the complainant as well as several other houses. THE complainant and other 28 persons filed a Civil Suit No. 18 of 1992 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Rampur on 31.1.1992 with a prayer that the Nagar Palika, Bilaspur be restrained from making any construction in front of the complainant''s house. THE Civil Judge by order dated 31.1.1992 directed the Nagar Palika, Bilaspur to maintain the status quo. THE Nagar Palika Chairman did not obey the order of the Civil Judge. Hence another order was passed by the Civil Judge on 3.2.1992 in which a direction was issued to the police that the injunction order be implemented and only then the construction work was stopped by the Nagar Palika. THE Chairman, Nagar Palika became furious and vindictive and in order to take revenge from the complainant, issued two notices dated 2.2.1992 alleging therein that the complainant constructed a Chhajja on Government road which was causing inconvenience in the free flow of traffic. The opposite party, Nagar Palika, on 3.2.1992 also illegally disconnected his water supply. Supply of water is mandatory duty of the Nagar Palika. The complainant had paid the last bill on 19.6.1991 for the period 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1991. Thereafter no notice of payment or demand was received by the complainant. There are thousands of residents in Bilaspur and only connection of the complainant and no other co-plaintiffs in the suit has been disconnected. By means of this illegal action of the Nagar Palika, the complainant has been put to loss and a direction be issued to the Nagar Palika to immediately restore the water supply to the complainant. He also claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for harassment etc. and Rs. 200/- per day damages till the water supply is restored.

The opposite party, Nagar Palika filed a written version alleging therein that the Nagar Palika has filed objections in Suit No. 18 of 1992 pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Bilaspur which has been filed by 33 persons including the complainant. The complainant has not paid the water tax which was due against him within time. Hence the water connection has been disconnected. Some other persons were also issued notices demanding water tax. It is wrong to say that the water connection has been disconnected on account of vindictiveness. If the complainant pays the water charges, the connection shall be restored. The learned District Forum is not liable to grant relief prayed by the complainant.

THE learned District Forum, after considering the evidence on record and hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground that the matter is pending before the Civil Court. On this ground the complaint has been dismissed. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, the complainant has come in this appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum.

NONE was present when the case was called inspite of notice having been issued. We have perused the grounds of appeal. A perusal of the file will go to show that the complainant and other persons have filed a civil suit which is pending before the Civil Judge, Bilaspur. In that case the complainant had prayed that the opposite party, Nagar Palika, be restrained from making any construction over the road in front of the complainant''s house, by decree of permanent injunction. In that case an application for temporary injunction was also moved by the various plaintiffs. Thus we find from the relevant evidence in this appeal that the suit is for injunction against the Nagar Palika. In another suit filed against the Nagar Palika the complainant has also claimed for permanent injunction directing the Nagar Palika from not making any construction and they be restrained from demolishing any part of the complainant''s house. It was also prayed that the water supply connection be restored. Thus in both these suits the complainant has prayed for permanent injunction and for water supply connection. The District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to grant permanent injunction or temporary injunction to direct the Nagar Palika to restore the water connection to the complainant. We find that the only remedy left for the complainant was to approach the Civil Court for these reliefs as they could not have been granted by the District Forum. The complainant has prayed before the District Forum for damages etc. The complaint for damages is maintainable before the District Forum as the District Forum has jurisdiction to decide whether the act of Nagar Palika has caused any damage to the complainant. This damage can be awarded by the learned District Forum as it is within its jurisdiction. In view of the above discussions we find that the suit which has been filed before the Civil Judge, Bilaspur was of a different nature and a different relief was prayed for in that case which relief could not have been granted by the District Forum. Therefore, the pendency of the suit filed before the Civil Judge, Bilaspur will not oust the jurisdiction of District Forum and the District Forum will have jurisdiction to decide the complaint. The finding of the learned District Forum are not in accordance with the provisions of the law and the same is liable to be set aside. As the matter has not been gone into on merits by the learned District Forum, therefore, the same is being returned for fresh trial according to law. The appeal is liable to be allowed. ORDER The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are set aside and the case is remanded. The District Forum is directed to register the case at its original number and to decide the same afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties. There will be no order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal allowed.