RAJBIR VILLAGE GHILOR KALAN, TEHSIL ROHTAK HARYANA Vs. KRISHAN & ORS. VILLAGE GHILOR KALAN, TEHSIL ROHTAK HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Twenty-eight residents of village Ghilor Kalan, Tehsil and District Rohtak, Haryana filed consumer complaint no. 365A/03 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak, saying that they deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000.00 each (except one person Subhash, who deposited Rs. 4,000.00) for taking connection for water supply from the opposite party no. 1, Suresh Kumar in the year 2000. An agreement valid for 20 years was also signed by the opposite party no. 1 to supply water to the complainants/consumers and that agreement was kept in the custody of the opposite party no. 2, Rajbir, who is the husband of Rajesh Devi, Sarpanch of village Ghilor Kalan at that time. It has been alleged that a dispute arose between the complainants and the opposite party no. 1 in April, 2003, regarding the supply of drinking water, following which a meeting of the water-connection holders was held under the chairmanship of Rajbir, opposite party no. 2, where the water supplier, opposite party no. 1, Suresh Kumar was also present. The opposite party no. 1 assured in the meeting that he shall supply water smoothly and regularly in future, otherwise he will return the security amount deposited by the complainants. However, the opposite party no. 1 failed to keep his promise, following which the complainants met the Deputy Commissioner of Rohtak, under the leadership of opposite party no. 2. After about a week's time, the supply of water was withdrawn by the opposite party no. 1 and efforts to restore the same did not bear fruit. The consumer complaint was then filed by 28 residents before the District Forum, impleading the water supplier, opposite party no. 1 and Rajbir, husband of the complainant as opposite party no. 2. The District Forum, vide their order dated 08.05.2006, allowed the said consumer complaint, giving directions to both the opposite parties to pay the security amount of the complainant along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing complaint till realisation. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite party no. 2, Rajbir challenged the same before the State Commission by way of First Appeal No. 1674/2006. Vide impugned order dated 08.04.2011, the State Commission dismissed the said appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum. Being aggrieved against the said order, the opposite party no. 2, Rajbir is before me by way of the present revision petition.

(2.) It has been contended by the petitioner/opposite party no. 2 that the security amount in question was deposited by the complainants with the opposite party no. 1, Suresh Kumar. Being husband of the Sarpanch of the village, his role was only to make efforts to ensure that the residents of the village are provided the facility of drinking water. The orders, passed by the consumer fora below, were erroneous in the eyes of law, because the security deposit could be returned only by the opposite party no. 1, Suresh Kumar.

(3.) The learned counsel, who appeared for the complainants/respondents no. 1 to 28 admitted during hearing that the security amount in question was deposited with Suresh Kumar. He, further, stated that the agreement signed between the parties was in the custody of the petitioner and since he had played an active role in the matter, it was his responsibility also to ensure that the said amount was returned to the complainants.