BARAGARH MUNICIPALITY Vs. GUNANIDHI DASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Baragarh Municipality through its Chairman and the Executive Officer of the said Municipality who were opposite parties 1 and 2 in C. D. Case No.87 of 1994 before the District Forum/ Baragarh are the appellants in this appeal challenging the final order passed by the District Forum in the said case. The present respondent No.1 as the complainant filed the aforesaid case representing a Consumer Association and ventilating the public grievances in respect of non-maintenance of some tanks within the limits of Baragarh Municipality. It has been alleged in the complaint petition that there are five tanks in a row situated in the heart of the Baragarh town out of which four tanks were transferred in favour of the Municipality. It has been stated that the Municipality was duty bound under the provisions of the Municipal Act to maintain the tanks which are used by the inhabitants of the locality for various purposes. According to the allegation in the complaint petition, the Municipality does not take any care to maintain those tanks and as a consequence, the tanks have been the source of dumping of filth and spread of diseases. It has also been alleged that the public at large who use the said tanks for various purposes have been deprived of the use of the water of those tanks as the same has become unfit for human use. A prayer was made for penalising the Municipality for the aforesaid deficiency in service and for a direction to the Municipality to maintain its tanks, ghats and the ridges. The complainant also claimed a compensation of Rs.1,000/for the injury sustained by him.

(2.) In the counter filed by the opposite parties, they denied all the allegations made in the complaint petition and also contended that there has been no deficiency in service on their part. The maintainability of the proceeding was also challenged on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Act as the Municipality does not render any service for consideration the deficiency of which could be called in question. The Collector who has joined as opposite party No.3 in the said case did not contest the case.

(3.) The District Forum after considering the case of the both parties, came to the conclusion that the complainant is a consumer as defined in the Act and as the Municipality has failed in its duty in maintaining the tanks/ it consequently held that the present appellants were deficient in rendering services to the consumers and allowed the case of the complainant. Although no compensation was awarded, the District Forum directed the opposite parties to clean the garbages of the tanks and to take steps to clean the polluted water thereof and to maintain the same in order that it would be usable by human beings. The Collector of the District was directed to see that the tanks are not polluted either through dumping of garbages or discharge of drain water into the same. None appears for the appellants nor for the respondent at the time of hearing.