CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2012.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 01/02/2012

CC / 32/2012

C.Ravi, Unit Secretary,

Kerala Consumer Protection Centre, - Complainant

R.No.193/93, Chennath House,

Durga Lane, Puthur, Palakkad- 1

(Party in Person)

Vs

1. Assistant Engineer,

W.S.Augmentation Section,

Kerala Water Authority,

Kalmandapam, Palakkad- 1

(BY ADV K.A.Stanly James)

2. Assistant Executive Engineer,

P.H.Sub Division,

Kerala Water Authority, - Opposite parties

Palakkad- 1

(BY ADV K.A.Stanly James)

O R D E R

BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER

Brief facts of the complaint:

The complainant and other 70 persons are the residents of Durga Lane, 5^th Ward Puthur. They are depending for drinking water on the public water tap under Palakkad Municipility. Municipality is paying Rs.5256/- to opposite party towards the water charge. On 11.1.2011 a person named 'Balaraman' he is said to be the engineer came and disconnected the public water tap and caused hardships to the people. He was informed that the higher authorities have decided to do so. After submitting the application the opposite party has reconnected the public water tap on 14.1.2012. Between 11.1.2011 and 14.1.2011 the people of Durga Lane suffered many difficulties to get drinking water. When it is enquired the complainant was informed that the opposite party has received phone call and written intimation regarding the misuse of drinking water from the said tap. To bring out the truth the complainant submitted application under RTI to Municipality and Municipal Secretary informed that they have no idea regarding the disconnection of the said water tap. Opposite party informed that the disconnection was done after receiving the complaint over phone and letter. The 1^st opposite party also seen the misuse of water in the way of washing clothes and autorikshaw on 11.1.2011. But in those days the 1^st opposite party is not in office.

The above said acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service on their part.

So the complainant seeking an order preventing the opposite parties from such activities and to pay an amount of Rs.900/- to complainant and 70 residents of Durga Lane.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following.

Opposite party had disconnected the Public Water Tap of Durga Lane, Puthur, Palakkad on 11.1.2011 after getting the information about the misuse of water from the said tap over phone and letter and inspection was made by the water authority. The complaint over phone was received on 11.1.2011 and numbered the complaint as 84/1. The written complaint was received on 10.1.2011. In the written complaint the name of the complainant has not mentioned. Instead of the name it is written as “Well Wisher”. So that the inspection was conducted on 11.1.2011 from the office of Assistant Engineer under Palakkad Subdivision Office. At that time it is seen that the water has been used for washing clothes and autorikshaw. But the persons who has done the misuse of water were not the direct consumers of opposite party. So that the water connection was disconnected. After getting the memorandums and assurance the water connection has been reconnected on 14.1.11 as per the direction from the Sub Division office. The disconnection was held under the supervision of the work superintendent in W.S Augmentation section.

Eventhough the W.S Augmentation section Assistant Engineer was not in the office the charge was handed over to PWSS Section Assistant Engineer, Malampuzha.

There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Ext.A1 to A5 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B6 was marked on the side of the opposite parties.

Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

3. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?

Issue No.I

Opposite party raised a contention that the complainant in the present case is not a consumer. Opposite parties are receiving water charges from Municipality, not from the complainant.

Complainant is a resident at Durga Lane, Puthur and depending the public water tap for drinking water. Opposite parties having no case that the said complainant is not a resident of that locality. As a beneficiary of the public water tap he will come under the term consumer.

Issues No.II & III

The case of the complainant is that the disconnection of Public water tap at Durga Lane, Puthur, Palakkad on 11.1.2011 caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and other residents of that locality.

The disconnection of the public tap is admitted by the opposite parties. The complainant alleges that the tap was disconnected without getting the order from the higher authorities. Complainant also alleges that on 11.1.2011 the Assistant Engineer was on leave. It is evident from Ext.A5 document. The version of opposite parties is that they have disconnected the said tap as per the information over telephone and a letter saying that the drinking water is being misused. So on 11.1.2011 the opposite parties made an inspection and confirmed that the drinking water is using for washing clothes and autorikshaw. It is not supported by documents. The connection was reconnected on 14.1.2011. In the complaint it is seen that the reconnection was on 14/1/2012. It may be a clerical error. Complainant admitted that for four days they are not getting drinking water from the said public tap.

As per Ext.A2 document the Municipality is not aware of the disconnection of the above said public tap. At the time of disconnecting a drinking water tap there must be an order from the higher officers. Opposite parties have not produced the order. In the version opposite party admits that on 11.1.2011 the Assistant Engineer was on leave due to training programme. The instruction for disconnecting the water tap was received from the Divisional Office.

As the WS Augmentation Section Assistant Engineer was attending training programme for those days the charge was handed over to the Assistant Engineer PWSS Section, Malampuzha. No document is produced to show the same. Opposite party admits that they are getting water charges from Municipality. There is no documents to show that water authority demanded the opposite parties to disconnect the water tap due to misusing of drinking water. In Ext.A2 it is clearly stated that the Municipality did not give such instruction to disconnect the public water tap. Opposite parties have no case that they are not receiving water charges from the Municipal Authority. According to Section 37 of Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act Definition of Supply of Water for domestic purposes clause (i) washing vehicles where they are kept for sale or hire will not come under domestic purpose. But there is no evidence to show that the vehicle which has been washed from the water tap was kept for sale or hire. In Ext.A4 the photocopy of the complaint by a well wisher itself it is understood that the scarcity of drinking water is very high in that locality. The disconnection was on 11.1.2011 and it was reconnected on 14.1.2011 as per the application submitted by the residents of that locality. No doubt that the persons using water from the public tap would be in trouble due to the disconnection of public tap.

Complainant is seeking compensation for himself as well as the other residents of the locality. Complainant is not representing others. Hence it can't be considered.

From the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in disconnecting the public water tap.

In the result complaint partly allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

Order shall be complied within 1 month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th day of June, 2012

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1– Copy of Ration Card No.1946002216 dt.24/12/2008

Ext.A2 – Copy of information letter dt.28/01/2011 and reply of Information letter dt.19.2.2011.

Ext. A3 – Copy of information letter dt.28/02/2011 and reply of Information letter dt.18.3.2011.

Ext.A4 – Letter of KWA(Original) dt.02/05/2011.

Ext.A5 - Letter of KWA(Original) dt.03/05/2011.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1- Copy of Information Letter dt.28/02/2011.

Ext.B2- Reply of Information letter dt.18.3.2011.

Ext.B3- Copy of information letter dt.29/03/2011 and reply of Information letter dt.26/04/2011.

Ext.B4- Copy of information letter dt.29/03/2011 and reply of Information letter dt.2/05/2011.

Ext.B5- Copy of information letter dt.15/04/2011

Ext.B6- Photocopy of letter sent to the Managing Director, KWA, Thiruvananthapuram dt.16/04/2011.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost allowed

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.