This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to provide water connection and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the loss caused to the complainant with cost of this proceedings.<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant in brief are as follows:/The complainant applied for the water connection to his house because of the non availability of water in his well. On receiving the application the opposite parties inspected the site and served a work order on 19.3.1998 instructing the complainant to fit necessary equipments. The complainant purchased the materials spending an amount of Rs.10, 000/- and installed the same. But the opposite party has not taken steps to give water connection. When the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party in the month of June 2001 he demanded a sum of Rs.1000/-as bribe, which was refused by the complainant. On the basis of the report given by 2nd opposite party a notice was issued by 1st opposite party to the complainant stating that the house of the complainant is comparatively on a higher level, so that he will get only small quantity of water if the connection will be given. In such circumstances water connection cannot be given until some expansion is made to the project. The house of the complainant is situated on a lower level comparing all the houses in that area. But the house connection was given to the neighboring house on 17.9.2001 and on enquiry the 1st opposite party expressed his inability to give the connection because of the earlier report of 2nd opposite party but requested the complainant to wait for some more time. Meanwhile another connection to one Kaipurath Govindan also given in that area. But opposite parties did not provide connection to the house of the complainant. The complainant suffered much mental agony and hardship and also financial loss of an amount of Rs.10,000/-.The complainant caused to issue notice on 30.7.2003 to opposite parties. On receiving notice the opposite party No1 inspected the house of the complainant and promised to provide water connection within 5 days. But they did not turned up. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version denying the entire allegations in the complaint. The contentions of the opposite parties in brief are as follows:<br /> The complainant applied for water connection and work order was issued from Kerala Water Authority on 19.3.1998. 2nd opposite party is the competent authority to report the technical feasibility inspected the place and reported that the place of the complainant is partially feasible. So opposite party No.1 has informed the complainant that the pressure of the flow of water will be less at higher level which may cause short fall in the supply of water. The allegation bribe raised against 2nd opposite party is baseless and intended to insult and defame him only. On 16, 6, 2001 complainant sent a letter stating that he could not complete the work due to some financial crisis. Meanwhile water supply quantity at high level area in Mayyil Panchayat became improved, the complainant in his letter dt. 26, 8.03 stated that he has completed the work, but the licensed plumber entrusted by him was permanently absent. The 1st opposite party directed another plumber to assist the complainant for executing the agreement etc, and this agreement was executed on 26.8.03.and the 1st opposite party issued water connection order on that day itself. The water connection was given on 19.9.2003 and now the complainant is a consumer of Kerala Water Authority.<br /> <br /> The main question to be decided in the above pleadings is that whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant<br /> is entitled to get any relief as prayed in the complaint.<br /> <br /> The complainant filed chief affidavit, but he was not ready to give oral evidence and thus affidavit returned. The documents on the side of the complainant marked with objection subject to proof. Opposite party has no oral evidence. <br /> No witness on both sides examined. The pleadings are not proved by evidence. Mere pleadings are not sufficient to prove the case, pleadings supported by evidence can only prove the allegations until and unless which is admitted by opposite parties. Taking into consideration the available facts and evidence we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief since he has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint stands dismissed ,No order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> President Member Member<br /> APPENDIX<br /> Nil<br /> /forwarded by order/<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br /> Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Kannur.<br /> <br />