- (1.) The 1st respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the fourth opposite party to provide another water connection to the house bearing D.No.5/585 as per G.O.Ms.No.260, dated 09.12.1998, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony by opposite parties and to pay Rs.3,000/- towards the cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the fourth opposite party, against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the fourth opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.22.10.2009 in C.C.120/2009. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 15.06.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant and first respondent counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 4th opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The first respondent / complainant seeking direction against the 4th opposite party, to provide another water connection to his house, has filed the case, not only against the appellant/4th opposite party, but also against the respondents 2 to 4, as if, he is a consumer and the 4th opposite party is a service provider, further alleging, the non-giving of another tap connection should be construed as deficiency of service.
(3.) The opposite parties resisted the case inter alia contending that by mistake or by oversight, Panchayat levied two house tax assessment, which required to be cancelled, that does not mean, the complainant is entitled to another water tap connection, since for one house, there would be only one tap connection, as such there was no deficiency of service, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;