The main legal point established in the judgment is that claims related to excess water flow and resulting damages do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission, and the appropriate forum for seeking compensation would be the Appropriate Court of Law under the law of torts.

Mr. Justice P.C. Misra, President —The complainant in this case has claimed a compensation of Rs. 32,56,000/alleging that due to excess flow of water through a canal which gradually damaged the ridge of the canal and flowed over his cultivable lands measuring A. 4.68 decs. and gradually turned it to be a ditch unfit for cultivation. According to him, a water reservoir was constructed on river Ichha at Lephripara from where canals have been drawn in different directions to provide water for cultivation purposes. According to the complainant, the opposite parties are collecting water tax from the persons whose lands are being irrigated from the said water channels and, therefore, they are consumers as defined in the Act. The complainant has alleged that initially there was leakage in the course of flow of water and gradually the ridge of the canal became damaged and the flow of water over the plot respecting to the complainant made it unfit for cultivation. This has begun from the year 1982 and is continuing and the complainant has brought this fact to the notice of authorities who never took any corrective measures as a consequence of which the complainant has suffered as stated earlier.

2. The opposite parties, namely, the Collector, Sundergarh and the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, in their show cause denied the allegations made in the complaint petition. They say that the injury alleged to have been committed is imaginary and false. According to them water is being supplied for cultivation which made various lands fertile and fit for cultivation.

3. We are not going into the other facts mentioned in the show cause for the reason that for what has been alleged in the complaint petition it would be beyond the competence of a forum created under the Consumer Protection Act to decide. It is not a case where the complainant paid for supply of water but he was denied water for cultivation. The clear case of the complainant is that excess of water flowed through the channel which overflowed and damaged the ridges and made the land unfit for cultivation. If due to any act or the inaction of the authorities the complainant had suffered any loss or damages, he may be entitled to compensation under law of torts by the Appropriate Court of Law but the Consumer Commission is hardly a place to entertain this dispute and provide redressal. In a similar case, i.e. C.D.A. No. 729 of 1995 O.S.C.D.R.C (D.P. Mohapatra v. E.E. Jagatsinghpur, I. Dvn. & Oth ers decided on 4.12.1996) we had taken the similar view and Held that the complainant in such a case will not be entitled to redressal in a consumer forum, we, therefore, find no merit in this case and dismiss the same as not maintainable.

Complaint dismissed.