NAGERCOIL MUNICIPALITY vs B.ASOKAN

THESE two appeals a rise out of one order passed in OP No. 217/95. The 1st complainant is one Asokan and the 2nd complainant is the General Secretary, Kumari Jilla Consumer Protection & Action Council. The case of the 1st complainant is that he applied to the opposite party Municipal Commissioner, Nagercoil Municipality on 8.12.1989 for getting water supply connection by remitting Rs. 5/- towards the application fee and Rs. 150/-towards deposit. Water connection has not been given for the past five years in spite of several requests while water connection has been sanctioned to many others overlooking the 1st complainant''s seniority. Even to a notice dated 9.7.1995, the opposite party has not heeded. On these grounds alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint was filed for directing the opposite party to give water supply connection and also for compensation.

NOTICE in the O.P. was sent to the opposite party, but the opposite party has chosen to remain ex-parte. The District Forum, on consideration of pleadings and evidence let in by the complainant, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and it gave an award directing the opposite party to sanction and supply water and also pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation besides costs of Rs.150/-,

Against this order, the opposite party has filed A.P. No. 233/96 contending that the order passed by the District Forum is not maintainable, and the complainants have filed A.P. No. 333/96 contending that the amount of compensation awarded is not sufficient and It shall be enhanced.

ON a careful consideration of the matter, we find no compelling reason to interfere with the finding of the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. As stated above, the opposite party has not filed any written version though notice of O.P. was sent to him, and has chosen to remain ex-parte. The allegation in the complaint that the 1st complainant has paid besides Rs. 5/-a sum of Rs. 150/- as deposit for water connection charges, stands undisputed. This shows that the 1st complainant has availed of the services of the opposite party for supply of water. The further allegation in the complaint that overlooking the complainant''s seniority, others have been supplied water stands undenied. It is also not disputed that the application was made as early as 8.12.1989. From all these, it appears to us that the District Forum was correct in holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, it has ordered the opposite party to give water connection to the 1st complainant. As regards the compensation of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the District Forum, in our view, considering the circumstances, it cannot be said that this amount is low and it should be enhanced. In the result, therefore, both the appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in both the appeals. Appeals dismissed.