State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Executive Engineer F.A.C, Ongole vs Managing Director Prakasam District ... on 3 December, 2009
FA BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH OF A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.1014/2007 AGAINST C.D.No.110/2007 DISTRICT FORUM, Prakasam at Ongole. Between: Executive Engineer F.A.C Public Health Division Ongole. Appellant/ Opp.party No.1 A N D 1. Managing Director Prakasam District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Co-op. Union Limited, Ongole. Respondent/ Complainant 2. The Commissioner, Ongole Municipality, Ongole. Respondent/ Opp.party No.2 Counsel for the Appellant: Government Pleader Counsel for the Respondents:-Mr.N.Satyanarayana-R1 (Mr.S.Nageshwara Reddy-R2) QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
& SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE (Typed to the dictation of Sri K.Satyanand,Honble Member) *** This is an appeal filed by the opposite party No.1 assailing the order of the District Forum imposing against it joint and several liability along with opposite party No.2, Municipality holding both of them responsible for the supply of water to the complainant co-operative society meant to serve the milk farmers.
The facts stated briefly are as follows:
It seems the complainant was established for the benefit of farmers eking out their livelihood through milch animals. It was established under A.P.Co-operative Societies Act. The said milk processing unit approached the opposite parties for the supply of water essential for its activity at the rate of 3 lakh gallons per day. An agreement was reached essentially between the complainant and the second opposite party Municipality. It seems the second opposite party Municipality entrusted the work of laying the pipe line to the first opposite party presumably on turn key basis while in fact the obligation proper namely supplying of the water was recognized as the sole responsibility of the municipality. The complainant claimed to have paid the requisite deposit of Rs.1 lakh and the work was virtually completed. A total amount of Rs.36.50 lakhs was utilized for this project of affording water supply to the complainant. The municipality agreed to supply water for four years to the complainant, milk society. But the municipality did not keep up its promise and discharge its obligation under the arrangement. The complainant therefore raised this consumer dispute not only against the municipality but also against the appellant who was the authority assigned to develop the infrastructure for the water supply which was marked to be done by the Municipality from its water works.
The appellant and the other opposite party resisted the complaint on grounds peculiar to each of them. While it is the case of the appellant that it had got nothing to do with the water supply and that it was a wing of the State Government, Public Health Department, the opposite party municipality contended that this obligation had heavily told upon its other obligations to supply water to the other consumers.
In support of its case, the complainant relied upon documents marked as Exs.A1 to A4 with the support of an affidavit. The first opposite party, appellant, filed an affidavit-cum-counter. The opposite parties relied upon exhibits B1 to B7.
On a consideration of the evidence adduced on either side, the District Forum found both the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service and granted relief to the complainant society in the following terms:
In the result, the petition is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to provide water to the complainants diary and to disconnect the illegal tap connections given from the pipe line between the municipal filtration to the complainants diary. The opposite parties are directed to provide water within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are further liable to pay Rs.50,000/- towards costs of the litigation apart from the main relief.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the present appeal contending inter-alia that the appellant was wrongly roped in as its role had come to an end the moment the pipe line was laid and the same was handed over to the Municipality of Ongole. The District Forum failed to see that it had no role in supplying the water and it was the exclusive activity of the Municipality only.
Heard both sides.
The points for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum against appellant/opposite party No.1 is sustainable and to what relief?
It is abundantly clear from the record, especially B series that the appellant was a functionary of the state government and its role was limited only to execute the project of laying the pipe line and the relevant money transaction related only to that. As far as the water supply activity is concerned, it was the exclusive obligation of the Ongole Municipality and by no stretch of imagination, the said obligation could be attributed to the appellant department which had undertaken to execute the work paving the way for the supply of water by the municipality to the complainant. In other words, the appellant was engaged only in the context of providing infrastructure for water supply and hand it over to the municipality which from then onwards was obliged to supply water to the complainant in terms of the arrangement and agreement as between the municipality and the complainant, co-operative society. Thus the imposition of obligation on the appellant is totally unwarranted. The appellant is therefore entitled at once to be absolved from the burden of liability imposed on it by the District Forum.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum in so far as it related to the appellant. In all other respects the order of the District Forum is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER.
Sd/-
MEMBER.
JM Dt.03-12-2009