KERALA STATE CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL     NO. 54/2016

JUDGMENT   DATED. 01/10/2018

( Appeal filed against the Order  in CC.No. 211/2014, Cdrf, Idukki.)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI S.S.SATHEESA CHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

RANJIT  .R                   : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

          Smt. Helen Jacob,

          Mamoottil Pleasant villa, Mulukunnam,

          Mundakayam East P.O, Idukki.                                                              

V/S                                                   

RESPONDENT:

Assistant Engineer,

P. H.Section, Kerala water authority,

Peerumade, Idukki.

 JUDGMENT

SRI. RANJIT. R MEMBER

          Complainant ,    not being  satisfied with the  Order dated 31-07-2015  passed in her complaint, viz   CC.No. 211/14 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal  Forum, Idukki has  filed this appeal.   The lower forum directed the opposite party  to  provide    drinking water  to complainant  through the land    where   consent of owner had been   obtained within     30 days from the receipt of the Order.   Over and above that  complainant  should have been granted the compensation claimed also  is her case for filing appeal.  Complainant  is  a   consumer of opposite party having taken a    drinking water connection from them.  Previously    the   complainant was  getting  enough  water  from that connection  in the  summer days. Now she is not getting enough water even for cooking.  The   difficulty  was   informed  to the opposite party and  also   to higher authorities filing petitions.   Complainant  now has  to  purchase  water from other sources.  The  in adequacy  of water supply  because extension of   pipeline allowing numerous connection from the  same  pipeline  by the opposite party. 

 The opposite party contended in their version that the pipeline  in the  area is fixed with  25 mm to 65 mm width  pipe and total length   is  22km from the tank.  There are   three pumping station ,     61 public taps  and 165  house connections.  They  are ready  to supply water  without any trouble  but due to  problem in  power supply and breakage of  pipeline  they  cannot do it  properly.  They further contended that water authority is  planning  to  start a project in the area  spending   22.5 crores rupees   and when  it    is  commissioned    there  will not be  any problem for  getting   water in the  area.

          The evidence consisted   of  the oral testimony of complainant  as Pw1 and Exbt. P1 and P2    on his  side .  Exbt. R1 to R3 were marked on the side of   opposite party.

    Appreciating the materials  produced by both  sides the  forum below  taking  note  that the  complainant is not getting  sufficient  water  and   that opposite party  has  admitted that  if a new line is drawn,  then,   all problems    over getting water will be solved,   directed the opposite party to provide  drinking  water to  complainant   through  the place where consent  for the   same   had been   obtained  within   30 days from the order.  Not satisfied with the  order  complainant has filed the  appeal reiterating the claim for compensation.

          Heard the appellant who was present  in person.  Perused  the records.  The contention of the appellant  is that since there was no water  to  her residence ,   she incurred    expenses towards buying   drinking water from  tanker lorry.  Even   though she claimed     an amount  of Rs. 45910/- as compensation and cost, the forum below  did not  allow any amount  on this count.    Complainant   submitted     that she is not getting  enough water,  but people of nearby colony  is  getting water.

 As per version  of opposite party they are ready to draw  pipe line through   the property of   neighbouring land owners   to the complainant’s house.  For that consent of  neighbouring   land owners has  to be obtained.  Due to   lack of fund   complainant has to meet the  expenses  for the same.  Then only they will be  able to extend the pipe line to the complainant’s place,   but,  the complainant is not ready to pay any amount  for drawing  such  connection.    

          Eventhough the complainant was not willing to spent any amount  to draw a new  pipe line   the lower forum   directed the opposite party   to provide    water  drawing the line    through  the  land  of  neighbours  after getting  consent from them. 

           Complainant   claimed     compensation and cost at  Rs. 45,910/-     setting forth   a  case that she had incurred such  expenses   for  getting  water   during the period when she was not getting water.  However,  no records were  produced by   complainant  to substantiate   her  claim. 

          In the above circumstances,  the lower forum has   not allowed  the prayer of  complainant  for getting compensation. 

          We   find  that the case canvassed  by the appellant / complainant  to get  compensation and cost is  not  supported  by any material, and  it was rightly not allowed by the forum below. 

            Appeal is devoid of merit and it is  dismissed.  In the result appeal is dismissed.

          Parties directed  to suffered their  respective  cost. 

                             JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESA CHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

                                        T.S.P. MOOSATH       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

RANJIT  .R                   : MEMBER

Sh/-