AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE appellant who was prosecuting this appeal in person does not appear. Since we have held that the notice intimating the date of hearing shall be taken to have been served on the appellant, this case was posted for final disposal to-day.
THIS appeal is directed against the final order passed by the District Forum, Bolangir in C.D. Case No. 106 of 1992. The complainant applied for water connection for domestic purposes on 10.12.90 which was duly approved by the Executive Engineer, Bolangir P.H.D. on 11.1.91 and thereafter the complainant complied with all the formalities and deposited a sum of Rs. 500/- as security deposit. But the water connection was not given to him. He, therefore, filed the aforesaid case for the deficiency in service on the part of the present appellant claiming a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- before the District Forum. The present respondents had shown cause explaining the cause of delay. Their stand is that providing water supply facilities to the area of the complainant was a new project which was to be undertaken. While the said undertaking was taken up, it was decided that it is necessary to examine the water supply feasibility position taking into consideration the water pressure in the pipe line and giving preference to supply of water through public stand posts. In this process, the progress of the work was delayed to some extent. But ultimately steps were taken to implement the scheme and to provide water for domestic consumption. It was also represented before the District Forum that the water supply connection would be given for domestic consumption at an early date and as a matter of fact it is submitted before us that it has already been given. The District Forum after considering the case of both parties directed the present respondents to give supply connection to the complainant in accordance with the sanctioned plan within a time fixed by the order. The District Forum did not, however, allow any compensation though it recorded a finding that the delay in supply of water for domestic consumption to the complainant was a deficiency in service. The complainant in this appeal has urged that since the District Forum has recorded a finding that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the respondents in giving water supply connection to the complainant, there was no justification in not awarding any compensation in his favour. It has been argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that the aforesaid finding of deficiency in service ignoring and without taking into consideration the said explanation furnished for the delay, the order of the District For am is really cryptic in the sense that it has not taken into consideration the pleas taken by the respondents in their show cause. It is not a case where the other persons were given domestic supply of water and the complainant was discriminated. It is a case where the scheme was to be extended to the area where the complainant was having his house and for that purpose it is natural that various aspects have to be examined including the feasibility of water pressure, taking into consideration the pressure of water, the supply of water to public stand posts etc. Thus, in our considered view, the delay in such circumstances cannot be attributed to deficiency in service. In the aforesaid circumstances, no compensation was payable to the complainant. The District Forum direction to the opposite parties to give supply connection to the complainant at an early date it was represented by the learned Counsel for the respondent has already been complied with. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.