SAHAB RAM Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PHED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the complainant. Claiming certain reliefs he filed complaint against the respondents/opposite parties which was allowed by the District Forum by the order dated 6.8.1993. Appeal filed by the respondents against this order was allowed by the State Commission by the order dated 29.5.1995 and case remanded to the District Forum for decision afresh. After remand by the order dated 22.10.1997 the District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to the respondents to get the water tested twice in a month to ensure its purity and supply pure water. Sum of Rs. 200 was awarded by way of compensation towards mental agony in addition to cost of Rs. 300. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission by the order dated 20.1.2006. It is this order which is being challenged by the petitioner in this revision.

(2.) CONTENTION advanced by Mr. Dipesh Choudhary for petitioner is that in terms of the order dated 6.8.1993 the District Forum had ordered supply of 20 gallons of water per head per day to the family of petitioner and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,500. After remand the District Forum did not pass order for supply of said quantity of water to the petitioner and quantum of compensation was erroneously reduced to Rs. 200. According to him, petitioner is entitled to the restoration of the order dated 6.8.1993. It is a matter of common knowledge that Sri Ganganagar to which place the petitioner belongs, there is scarcity of water. State Commission was of the view that District Forum had not committed any error by not fixing the ceiling of water to be supplied to the petitioner. It was not inclined to interfere with the discretion of District Forum in awarding compensation of Rs. 200 towards mental agony to the petitioner. Having considered the above referred submission we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the approach of State Commission in declining to fix ceiling of water supplied to the petitioner and interfering with the discretion of District Forum in awarding the said amount towards compensation. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.