JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, President - Present appeal is filed against order dated 24.02.2018 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission (Nomenclature of District Consumer Forum converted to District Consumer Commission vide new Consumer Protection Act 2019) in consumer complaint No.192/2016 titled Bhikham Ram Versus The Executive Engineer IPH & Anr. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Shri Bhikham Ram filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that complainant is resident of Village Garoru P.O. Kalkhar Tehsil Balh District Mandi (H.P). It is pleaded that complainant applied for domestic water connection for his house to the opposite parties and completed all codal formalities. It is pleaded that domestic water connection was sanctioned in the name of complainant by opposite party No.2 on dated 15.09.2015 from LWSS Jhair scheme. It is further pleaded that complainant deposited consideration amount of water connection also vide receipt No.9070 dated 30.03.2016. It is pleaded that complainant also laid down pipeline from main water supply pipeline upto his house. It is pleaded that opposite parties did not install water connection to complainant and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief to the effect that opposite parties be directed to issue water connection to the house of complainant. In addition complainant sought relief of compensation to the tune of Rs.10000/-(Ten thousand) for mental tension and harassment. In addition complainant sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs.5000/-(Five thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that complainant has not approached consumer authority with clean hands and consumer authority has no authority to try and dispose of consumer complaint. It is admitted that private water connection was sanctioned in the name of complainant on dated 15.09.2015 from LWSS Jhair scheme. It is pleaded that complainant was required to lay down GI pipeline of 15mm dia from main line upto house but complainant has laid down only rubber pipeline. It is further pleaded that there would be chances of damage to rubber pipeline and would effect public at large. It is pleaded that opposite parties have fixed GI Tee on main line in the month of April 2016 to connect pipeline of complainant and process of connection was in progress. It is further pleaded that there would be chances of damage to rubber pipeline and would effect public at large. It is pleaded that opposite parties have fixed GI Tee on main line in the month of April 2016 to connect pipeline of complainant and process of connection was in progress. It is pleaded that meanwhile residents of village Jhair came at the spot in mob and stopped process of water connection on the plea that complainant is not beneficiary of LWSS Jhair scheme and with the additional plea that complainant has been already provided public water connection in his courtyard of his house from LWSS Kalkhar Garoru. It is further pleaded that department could not install connection due to objection raised by general public of area. It is pleaded that again opposite parties tried to connect water connection on dated 29.07.2016 alongwith Fitter and Work Inspector but villagers of village Jhair came again in mob and stopped work of water connection. It is pleaded that thereafter again on 14.09.2016 opposite parties made another effect to connect connection but again connection work was stopped by mob of residents of village Jhair. It is further pleaded that opposite parties have also installed public tap of IPH department adjacent to house of complainant and hand pump has also been installed by opposite parties along road side. It is pleaded that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Learned District Consumer Commission dismissed consumer complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Consumer Commission complainant filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and learned ADA for respondents and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal and whether opposite parties could not install water connection to complainant due to concept of forced majeure by general public of area upon opposite parties? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 7. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent applied for domestic water connection for his house from opposite parties and also submitted NOC. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 7. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent applied for domestic water connection for his house from opposite parties and also submitted NOC. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties did not install water connection despite receipt of consideration amount from deponent. 8. Complainant also filed affidavit of Shri Parma Ram in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that on dated 12.08.2015 villagers and deponent issued NOC. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties did not install water connection to complainant. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by complainant. 9. Opposite parties filed affidavit of Shri Prabhu Ram Assistant Engineer in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that IPH department sanction private connection in the name of complainant on dated 15.09.2015 from LWSS Jhair scheme. There is recital in affidavit that complainant was under legal obligation to install GI 15mm dia pipeline from main pipeline but complainant has laid rubber pipeline which is not acceptable to opposite parties as there are chances of damage to rubber pipeline which would cause wastage of water and would effect public at large. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties tried to install water connection to complainant in the month of April 2016 but residents of village Jhair came at the spot in mob and stopped the installation work. There is recital in affidavit that again on 29.07.2016 department tried to connect water connection of complainant but again villagers of village Jhair came on the spot in mob and stopped the work. There is further recital in affidavit that again on 14.09.2016 department made effort to install water connection but again process of water connection was stopped by residents of village Jhair. 10. Opposite parties also filed affidavit of Shri N.P. Parmar Executive Engineer IPH in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that private water connection was sanctioned in the name of complainant on dated 15.09.2015 from LWSS Jhair Scheme. There is recital in affidavit that complainant was required to lay down GI pipeline of 15mm dia from main pipeline upto the house but complainant only laid down rubber pipeline which is not acceptable to the department. There is recital in affidavit that private water connection was sanctioned in the name of complainant on dated 15.09.2015 from LWSS Jhair Scheme. There is recital in affidavit that complainant was required to lay down GI pipeline of 15mm dia from main pipeline upto the house but complainant only laid down rubber pipeline which is not acceptable to the department. There is further recital in affidavit that department fixed GI Tee on main line in the month of April to connect pipeline but process of connection was stopped by residents of village Jhair. There is recital in affidavit that again on 29.07.2016 department tried to connect water connection of complainant but again villagers of village Jhair came at the spot in mob and stopped the work. There is further recital in affidavit that again on 14.09.2016 department made effort to install water connection but again process of water connection was stopped by residents of village Jhair. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by opposite parties. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that opposite parties were under legal obligation to install water connection after receiving consideration amount and after sanction of water connection and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. Shri Prabhu Ram Assistant Engineer and Shri N.P. Parmar Executive Engineer have specifically mentioned in their affidavits that they have tried to install water connection thrice i.e. (1) In the month of April (2) On dated 29.07.2016 (3) On dated 14.09.2016 but residents of village Jhair came at the spot in a mob and stopped installation process forcibly. State Commission is of the opinion that Shri Prabhu Ram Assistant Engineer and Sh. N.P. Parmar Executive Engineer are public servants and they have filed affidavits in discharge of their official duties. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that Shri Prabhu Ram Assistant Engineer and Sh. N.P. Parmar Executive Engineer have hostile animus against complainant at any point of time. It is proved on record that three attempts were made to install water connection by opposite parties i.e. (1) In the month of April (2) On dated 29.07.2016 (3) On dated 14.09.2016 but residents of village Jhair came at the spot in a mob and stopped installation process forcibly started by opposite parties. It is proved on record that three attempts were made to install water connection by opposite parties i.e. (1) In the month of April (2) On dated 29.07.2016 (3) On dated 14.09.2016 but residents of village Jhair came at the spot in a mob and stopped installation process forcibly started by opposite parties. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties were stopped from installing water connection in question by residents of village Jhair who came in mob and it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to exonerate opposite parties from liability on the concept of forced majeure. 12. Even annexures-R2 & R3 filed by Shri Jeet Ram Work Inspector of opposite parties wherein Sh. Jeet Ram has specifically mentioned that officials of opposite parties went to install water connection of complainant but they were not allowed to complete the process of water connection by the mob. Hence State Commission is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to exonerate opposite parties from liabilities on the concept of forced majeure. 13. Submission of learned ADA appearing on behalf of opposite parties that order of learned District Consumer Commission is in accordance with laws and is in accordance with proved facts is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite parties tried their best to install water connection thrice but opposite parties were stopped from installing water connection in favour of complainant by a mob thrice. Deficiency on the part of opposite parties intentionally is not proved on record. State Commission is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to exonerate opposite parties from liabilities on the concept of forced majeure. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 14. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order of learned District Forum (Nomenclature of District Consumer Forum converted to District Consumer Commission vide new Consumer Protection Act 2019) is affirmed. Annexures R2 & R3 shall form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order of learned District Forum (Nomenclature of District Consumer Forum converted to District Consumer Commission vide new Consumer Protection Act 2019) is affirmed. Annexures R2 & R3 shall form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. In view of complicated facts complainant is relegated to civil court in order to adjudicate dispute between complainant and general public of area qua installation of water connection from LWSS water supply scheme to complainant. 15. File of learned District Consumer Commission alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.