Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 345 (CHH)

LAXMI NARAYAN v. GOVT. OF C. G.

2005-11-24

R.S.AWASTHI, V.K.AGARWAL

body2005
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri R.S. Awasthi, Member :- 1. This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the act') directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum') in complaint case No. 255/2000 on 12/01/2004 dismissing the complaint. 2. Complainant has averred that being an agriculturist holding 2.93 acres of land in village Purai in Durg District sown summer paddy in his lands. He was assured that water for irrigating the paddy crop will be made available to him for Rabi crop in the year 99-2000 and paid irrigation revenue at Rs. 240/- per acre. He spent Rs. 19,400/- on agricultural operations fertilizers etc and expectet a Paddy crop of Rs. 84,000/-. But water for irrigating his fields was not made available to him causing loss of his crops. A compensation of Rs. 1,03,600/- has been prayed for. 3. In reply the OP-2 has stated that there was no agreement with the complainant for supply of irrigation water nor did he demand water for irrigation. It is also stated that the complainant had leased out his field to one Govind Sahu on lease (Regh). The said Govind had applied for supply of water on demand and was provided water for irrigation. It is categorically stated that for want of demand or agreement there was no assurance for supply of water and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. 4. First question for consideration is whether there was any agreement between the complainant and OPs for supply of water. A copy of Khasra Panchsala of the relevant land is on record showing the holding of the complainant as 2.93 acres, irrigated by Canal. A bill for Rs. 360/- for 0.60 acres towards irrigation charges Rabi Paddy crop for 99-2000, A money receipt No. 28/2293 for Rs. 360/- is also placed before us. The authenticity of the above document have in no way been challenged or rebutted by the OP. 5. Copies of 2 applications addressed to the Collector complaining of withholding irrigation water to the villagers signed by several villagers have been filed by the complaint. The copies of the aid applications have also been posted to the Sub Divisional Officer of the Irrigation department. The fate of the said complaints is not known. 6. 5. Copies of 2 applications addressed to the Collector complaining of withholding irrigation water to the villagers signed by several villagers have been filed by the complaint. The copies of the aid applications have also been posted to the Sub Divisional Officer of the Irrigation department. The fate of the said complaints is not known. 6. OP has filed the copy of the agreement for supply of water to the village. From perusal of the said document it appears that there was no agreement with the OP. As per the Irrigation Act there are 2 systems of supply of water- by agreement and by demand. Water is made available to willing agriculturists on demand on payment of charges fixed per acre subject to availability of water. 7. A legal notice was served by the complainant on the OP on 12/05/ 2000. In reply vide No. 4474 dated 11/07/2000 to the said notice the OP has stated that there was no agreement with the complainant. It is also stated that water supply was not stopped but the complainant could not obtain water for irrigating his fields as he did not take proper interest and left cattle in his fields for grazing as the crop did not ripe for want of water. 8. In view of the copies of Khasra, money receipt and the said reply to the notice, the contentions of the OP that there was no commitment on their part for supply of water, can not be believed. In view of the copies of complaints made to the SDO Irrigation and the Collector it is still more difficult to accept the argument that the complainant himself was negligent and indifference in irrigating fields. 9. Therefore in our opinion the OP failed to supply water for irrigation to the complainant despite having received Rs. 360/- from him. However from the record it is clear that the complainant had paid for the charges of irrigation only for 0.60 acres of lands. Therefore there is no justification for claiming the damages for the entire holing. Thus they were deficient in service in respect of an area of 0.60 acres and liable for payment of damages. In view of the material on records and the above discussion the appeal succeeds. The impugned order is set aside. OPs are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the crops failed and Rs. Thus they were deficient in service in respect of an area of 0.60 acres and liable for payment of damages. In view of the material on records and the above discussion the appeal succeeds. The impugned order is set aside. OPs are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the crops failed and Rs. 3,000/- towards mental harassment with interest @ 9 % from the date of complaint. An amount of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the appeal shall also be payable to the complainant. Appeal Allowed.