Tribunals and Commissions(1996) 12 NCDRC CK 0032

ASSTT. ENGINEER, CUTTACK WATER SUPPLY SUB-DIVISION vs KRUSHNA CHANDRA MISHRA

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 17 December 1996 · Citation: 1998 1 CPJ 403 : 1998 3 CPR 61

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.C.Misra , Biswanath Rath , Mrinalini Padhi J.
RESULT
Appeal partly allowed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 478 words
1.

HEAD the appellants. None appears for the respondent. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Cuttack in C.D. Case No. 213 of 1994. The respondent as complainant filed the aforesaid case alleging deficiency in service against the present appellants. The complainant had taken water connection to his residential house at Cuttack and has alleged that he has not been getting adequate water supply. His assertion is that he is paying water charges for supply of water as per the scheduled rate of Rs. 7.50 for each tap per month and non-supply of adequate water is a deficiency in service which should be compensated. As it appears from the impugned order, the present appellants entered appearance but failed to file show cause before the District Forum. Ultimately on the date of hearing, they also were absent. So accepting the averments made by the complainant, the District Forum directed the present appellants to visit the premises of the complainant and to check up the water supply position and take suitable steps for ensuring proper and adequate supply of water during the scheduled hours. The District Forum also awarded a cost of Rs. 100/-. Hence this appeal.

2.

THE appellants moved an application for stay before this Commission and this Commission by order dated 11.10.1995 refused to stay that part of the order which directed the appellants to inspect the premises and find out if there has been supply of sufficient water and provide remedies, if there is deficiency in proper and adequate supply of water. THE realisation of cost of Rs. 100/- was, however, stayed by the said order. An affidavit has been filed thereafter before this Commission by the Executive Engineer, Cuttack P.H.D. No. I to the effect that the appellants have inspected the premises of the complainant on 19.8.1995 and found that the supply of water was adequate. THEy have also enclosed a xerox copy of a letter purported to have been sent by the complainant dated the 26th August, 1995 that water is being supplied to his premises in adequate quantity. In view of the aforesaid situation, nothing further remains to be decided as against the main part of the order of the District Forum. THE only question that requires consideration is as to whether the order directing payment of cost of Rs. 100/- requires any modification. In view of the prompt steps taken by the appellants in complying with the directions of the District Forum in inspecting the premises of the complainant and in view of the admission of the complainant that water supply has become adequate to his premises, we are inclined to modify the order of the District Forum by setting aside the direction for payment of cost of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred). THE appeal is, therefore, allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Appeal partly allowed.