BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 69/2009 Filed on 26.03.2009

Dated : 16.04.2011

Complainant:

C. Vijayan, Kuzhivila House, Monvila, Kulathoor P.O, Pin-695 583.

(Appeared in person)

Opposite parties :

1. Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Water Works Section VII, Pongummoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Water Works Section VII, Pongummoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

3. The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. P. Dileep Khan)

This O.P having been heard on 08.03.2011, the Forum on 16.04.2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainant in this case is a consumer of Kerala Water Authority bearing consumer No. APW/666/D. The complainant states that in connection with the JBIC Project there was pipe line work in his area which happens leakage in complainant's water connection line. The complainant informed this leakage to the Assistant Engineer through telephone . Thereafter the contract worker of the opposite party inspected the leakage and informed the complainant that there was leakage in the connection line of the complainant's line and for rectifying that leakage Rs. 750/- is to be required. Thereafter they closed the leakage. After that the complainant was not getting water from his pipe line. Complainant informed this matter to the opposite parties on 17.03.2009 and then opposite parties directed the complainant to rectify the defect at his own cost. Hence the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum to reinstate the water supply and to get damages for his mental agony.

Opposite parties filed their version contending that the leakage of the line was not due to JBIC pipe line works. The alleged leak came out after two months of the completion of their work and road tarring. The opposite parties have done every thing within the rules and regulations to provide water to the complainant. The consumer has to rectify the leak near the boring point at his own cost by a licensed plumber under the supervision of the Water Authority. Necessary road cutting fee and labour has to be given by the consumer. It is the duty of the complainant to rectify the leakage of their water connection.

In this case as per the application submitted by the complainant this Forum appointed an expert commission to visit the spot and assess the leakage of water connection and other allied matters. The commissioner filed report before this Forum which was marked as Ext. C1 and the commissioner was examined as PW2. Complainant and opposite parties have filed affidavits and were examined them as PW1 and DW1. From the side of complainant 4 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P4.

Points to be ascertained :

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- From the evidences and commission report filed by the expert commissioner we find that the reason for not getting water through the complainant's line was due to closing of the valve in the boring point. When the valve was opened the petitioner is getting sufficient water from the connection and there was no leakage from the meter point to the connection point. As per the commission report the above said reasons are the non-availability of water. The opposite parties are liable for this act. Definitely the valve was closed by the opposite party's workers. The complainant's repeated requests were denied by the opposite parties. It is the duty of the opposite parties to inspect and rectify the defects in the water connection. But in this case the opposite parties simply evade from their liability with lame excuses like the defect was in service line and they have no liability, it is the duty of the complainant to rectify the defects in connection line etc. As a service provider of State Government it is the duty of the opposite parties to provide water to the consumers. In this case the opposite parties' workers negligently closed the valve through where the complainant gets water. Due to the deficient and negligent act of the opposite parties the complainant was not getting water for a long period. We can understand the difficulties suffered by the complainant and his family due to the non-availability of water. On going through the entire record we find that there is deficiency in service and dereliction of duty from the side of opposite parties. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Otherwise the above said amount shall carry 12% annual interest till the date of realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16^th day of April 2011.

Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 69/2009

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - C. Vijayan

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Demand & disconnection notice dated 03.01.2009.

P2 - Copy of receipt dated 06.05.2009.

P3 - Copy of demand & disconnection notice dated 06.05.2009

P4 - Copy of letter dated 17.03.2009 issued by complainant.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Joy H Jones

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

V COURT EXHIBITS

CW1 - N. Ayyappa Das

Sd/-

PRESIDENT