By: Sri. Sri. Mohandasan K., President

Complaint in short is as follows: -

1.            The complainant is a consumer under the opposite party vide consumer No. TVR /994/D. The water supply of the complainant stands stopped for the last nearly five months. The complainant issued a complaint to the opposite party, Executive engineer, water authority, Edappal division. But no reply was received from the opposite party.  It is also submitted that almost all the consumers who are residing within ward No.9 of the Tavanur Grama Panchayat also is not getting water supply. The opposite party closed the connection on receipt of complaint of non- supply of water to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant issued a complaint to Assistant engineer, water authority, PH section No.11 of Edappal on 29/12/2020 under Kerala State Right to Service Act. On 19/01/2021 the complainant filed an appeal before executive engineer PH division, Kerala water authority Edappal under Kerala State Right to Service Act. Thereafter, complainant filed a second appeal before the superintending engineer, PH circle, Kerala water authority, Malappuram on 08/02/2021. But there was no reply or remedial action from the side of opposite parties.

2.         The complainant submit that all the pipelines of water authority situate at a height of 60 cm from the ground level. It is usual to break the pipelines while passing vehicles through the way. The same situation is continuing for the last nearly 4 years and for that also complainant submitted complaint, but no remedial action was taken by the opposite party. As per the concerned law, the pipe line of the water is to be laid below 90 cm from the ground level.

3.         The submission of the complainant is that a complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as per the decisions of National Disputes Redressal Commission as well as the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme court against opposite parties for the denial of service. The complainant cited the decision of doctor SP Tirumala Rao Vs Municipal Commissioner, Mysore city Municipality. Hence the complainant prays for the compensation and cost from the opposite party.

4.         On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version denying the entire averments and allegations contained in the complaint. The opposite party submitted that complaint is without any merit and to be dismissed in limine.

5.         The opposite parties admitted that the complainant is a consumer under the opposite party with consumer number TVR 994/D but denied the allegation that the water supply was obstructed for the last five months, that the complaint was submitted on 19/11/2020 before the executive engineer water authority Edappal, no proper reply was received, not only the connection of the complainant but also the connections of residents  in 9^th ward of Tavanur grama panchayat was also obstructed, due to submission of complaint valve of the water connection pertaining to 9^th  ward was closed by the employees of the opposite party, thereafter no water supply to the complainant etc.  The complainant is a consumer of Danida Drinking water scheme of Thavanur Graama panchayat. The opposite party supplying water to the complainant subject to the availability of water. But the opposite party submitted that the scheme is located at the shore of “Bharathapuzha” and the source of water is the well situate at Thrikkannapuram and during end of the November Month the water flow of river will come down and due to the shortage of water the pumping will be affected and for a short period there will be some shortage in supply of water to the complainant. On expiry of rainy season consumption of water will be increased and the supply to the area of higher site will be affected, to manage the situation and to provide supply to all areas valve to the pipe line has to be installed. The installing valves are for regulation of the supply of the water. Due to the complaint of the complainant the valve was closed and it was inspected by the executive engineer on 30/03/2021 and it could see that the complainant was getting water at that time. The opposite party submitted, the allegation that the consumers of 9^th ward stand totally denied the supply of water and no action taken on receipt of complaint from the complainant and on receipt of the complaint the opposite party closed the valve are false and which are submitted under mistaken impression.

6.            The opposite party denied the submission of the complainant that the complainant submitted a petition under Kerala State Right to Service Act on 29/12/2020 to the assistant engineer, PH division, No.11, Kerala water authority Edappal and no reply was received.  But the opposite party submitted that proper reply was given to the complainant. The opposite party also specifically denied that the averment that on 19/01/2021 an appeal was submitted before the executive engineer PH division, Kerala water authority, and no reply or rectification from the concerned office etc.  The complainant filed appeal while the opposite party was taking necessary action on the complaint. The assistant executive engineer and assistant engineer submitted explanation on the complaint directly to the Superintending engineer. The opposite party submitted that only due to the scarcity of water from the source is the sole reason for not finding effective solution for the complainant. The opposite party   solved the issue of complainant to the maxim extend on availability of water. The opposite party also denied the allegation that the complainant had preferred a second appeal before the opposite party on 08/02/2021 before superintending engineer PH circle Kerala water authority and no reply was received from the superintending engineer. It is submitted that reply was given to the complainant on his appeal petition on 05/03/2021. The opposite party denied the allegation that the pipe lines of the opposite party remains at height of 60 centimeter from the ground level, while passing vehicles it is regular to break the pipes, last 4 years complainant submitted complaint regarding the pipelines but there was no proper redressal, as per the law the pipelines have to be placed 90 cm below the ground level and which appears not applicable to the opposite party etc. The opposite party submitted that there is IDTR pumping mains is also situate in addition to water supply pipelines and gravity mains. The pipelines belong to water authority was installed as part of Danida Scheme to supply water to the nearby panchayat of Edappal.  All the pipe lines were laid below the ground level as prescribed. But nearly five years ago there was renovation work on National Highway and due to excavation of mud, the ground level was affected and the pipelines including IDTR pumping main happened to be above the ground level.  There is gravity main of water authority also situate on the top of the ground level.  So, it is not possible to place PVC pipes alone as alleged by the complainant.  The opposite party further submitted that for the rectification of the defects the permission of PWD as well as fund and administrative sanction is required. It is submitted that proposal has been submitted for the same.  More over all the houses of Tavanur Grama panchayath included in Jala Jeevan Mission and there is scheme for providing domestic connection during the year 2020 -2021 for which administrative sanction for 40 corers also received.  On implementing the scheme all the grievance of the complainant would be resolved.

7.         The opposite party contended that they are not aware of the decision in C.C. No.314/2020 dated 30/11/2013 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ernakulam, and also the contention regarding decisions of National Disputes Redressal Commission and the Hon’ble Supreme court.  The opposite party submitted that the decisions of the concerned legal authorities based on the facts and circumstances of each and every complaint. The opposite party denied that no response was received from the side of opposite parties on appeals filed by the complainant.  The opposite party submitted that on installation of WTP water supply scheme on 15/02/2021 at Nariparamba enabled supply of water to the complainant and the complaint is presently getting water. The submission of the opposite party is that the second opposite party has verified the same physically and is convinced also. The opposite party submitted that they have given reply to the complainant also.   The opposite parties denied the averments regarding the decisions of National Disputes Redressal Commission, Dr. SP. Thirumala Rao Vs Municipal Commissioner Mysore city, the government employees are responsible for the personal deficiency and they are personally liable for the loss etc. The submission of the opposite party is that the complaint is not legally maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant acted contrary to the agreement and any natural or unnatural event occurs for which the opposite party has got limitation for redressing the grievances. The aim of the complainant is to cause inconvenience and hardship to the opposite party. The complainant trying to harass the opposite parties.  The complaint is not entitled any relief as prayed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.

8.            The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A20. The documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1. Ext. A1 is copy of complaint dated 19/11/2020. Ext. A2 is copy of application under Kerala State Service Act dated 29/12/2020. Ext. A3 is copy of appeal petition dated 19/01/2021 under Kerala State Service Act. Exit. A4 is copy of second appeal under Kerala State Right to Service Act dated 08/02/2021. Ex.t A5 is copy of reply issued by superintending engineer Malappuram Kerala water authority dated 09/03/2021. Ext. A6 is photograph of pipeline valve indicating closure of the same. Ext. A7 is photographs shows the pipe line remains over the ground level. Ext. A8 is copy of the order issued by superintending engineer dated 06/06/2019. Ext. A9 is copy complaint dated 07/06/2019. Ext. A10 is copy of reply dated 29/10/2019 issued by assistant executive engineer water authority Edappal. Ext. A11 is copy of Kerala Gazette / Kerala water authority notification dated 08/04/2013.  Ext. A12 copy of letter issued to assistant engineer water authority Edappal . Ext. A13 is copy of DD for 10 rupees. Ext.A14 is copy of reply issued by assistant engineer water authority Edappal.  Ext. A15 is copy of decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 28/05/2009. Ext. A16 is copy of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala dated 15/03/2021. Ext. A17 is copy of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bangalore water authority case dated 05/05/2005. Ext. A18 is copy of postal acknowledgment. Ext. A19 is notice issued by water authority to the complainant dated 03/01/2022. Ext. A20 is copy of photographs showing the meter reading.  Ext. B1 is copy of the proceeding by the Superintending engineer Kerala Water authority under Information Act dated 07/04/2021. The commissioner’s report marked as Ext. C1.

9.         Heard complainant and opposite parties perused affidavit and documents and following points arise for consideration: -

            1) Whether there is deficiency in-service on the part of opposite parties?

2) Relief and cost?

10.       Point No.1

            The complainant filed this complaint on 06/03/2021 stating that he is not getting water supply for the last five months and so the complainant approached the opposite parties but there is no relief.  He also submitted that on presenting complaint before the opposite party about non supply of water. Then the opposite parties installed a valve and thereby obstructed the supply of water to almost all the consumers of 9^th ward of Thavanur Grama Panchayat. The complainant also submitted that water pipelines of the water authority situate at height to 60 cm above from the ground level and it is usual to break the pipe lines while passing vehicles through the way. The submission of complainant is that the situation is continuing for the last 4 years despite receipt of complaint about the same the opposite party have not taken any remedial action on the matter.  The complainant submit that the concerned law prescribes the pipe line of the water is to be laid below 90 cm from the ground level.  

11.       The contention of the opposite party is that the proper reply was given to the complainant in the matter of complaint and the complainant is getting water in accordance with the availability of the water. The submission of the opposite party is that complainant is a consumer of Danida Drinking water scheme of Thavanur Grama Panchayat and the scheme is located at the shore of “Bharathapuzha” and the source of water is the well situate at Trikkannapuram and during the end of the November month the water flow of river will come down due to the shortage of water the pumping will be affected and for a short period there will be some shortage in supply of water to the complainant.  It is submitted that on expiry of rain season conception of water will be increased and the supply to the area of higher site will be affected, to manage the situation and to provide supply to all areas valve to the pipe line has to be installed.  The installing valves are for regulation of the supply of water. Due to the complaint of the complainant the valve was closed and it was inspected by the executive engineer on 30/03/2021 and it could see that the complainant was getting water at that time. The submission of the opposite party is that only due to the scarcity of water from the source is the sole reason for not finding affective solution for the complainant.

12.       The opposite party produced Ext. B1 to prove the contention of the opposite party. Ext. B1 is the copy of the proceedings and the order of the superintending engineer, Kerala water authority, PH circle Malappuram as part Right to information Act 07/04/2021. It can be seen that Ext. B1 is and order after filing the present complaint. Ext. B1 shows that the grievance of the complainant was that he was not supplying water while the water was pumping Thrikkannapuram and at the time of inspection by the opposite parties on 30/03/2021 the complainant was getting water while commissioned new water treatment plant at Nariparamba.  Now the question arises whether the complaint is getting water from the opposite party as stated in Ext. B1.  The complainant issued an Advocate commission in the present complainant and the advocate commissioner inspected this spot on 02/08/2022 after serving notice to both parties and in presence of complainant and opposite parties.  The Commissioner reported that the pipe lines, supplying water to the complainant appeared to as closed the valve with using sack.  The commissioner reported that the complainant was not serving drinking water.  The commission also submitted that he enquired with neighboring people who are residing near to MES Engineering college also stated that they are not providing drinking water for the last two years. But the opposite party regularly issuing water bill to them.   The commissioner reported that there is a water tank near to naval resolve with a capacity of 10 lakh litters. Even then the residence of the areas is not getting drinking water. The grama panchayat member Mr. Faisal and block Panchayat member Mr. Akbar Kunhu also told the something to the commissioner. The commissioner reported that the first and second opposite parties said to him that there is a scheme called JJM phase with a capacity of 21 lakh litter and it has got administrative sanction from the government for the year 2000-2021. The Commission also reported that he asked the first and second opposite parties to show any house connection those who are getting water supply at the time of their inspection. The opposite parties failed to show the same to the commissioner, instead said that only on Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday are the days of supply of water to the area. The commissioner also reported that the complainant and the people of the locality said to him that the residence of 10th ward is getting water supply under the scheme. The commissioner also submitted certain photographs which shows the pipe line as well as water meter as alleged in the complaint. 

13.       Neither the complainant nor the opposite party filed any objection on the Commission report. So, this commission accept the Ext. C1 report and find that the complainant is not getting drinking water as stated in the complaint and also the persons residing in the locality.  We find that the averment in para 1 of Ext. B1 document, that the complainant is getting drinking water after commissioning of water treatment plant at Nariparmaba is not correct.  It is also pertinent to note that the opposite parties collecting water bills regularly from the complainants without supplying water to the consumers.

14.       The complainant alleges the pipe lines of the opposite party situate at a height of 60 cm above from the ground level.  The opposite party admit that through Ext. B1 the pipe lines have to be placed at a 90 cm below from the ground level. But the pipe lines as alleged in this complaint stands above the ground level since due to excavation work for the national highway.    It is further submitted that the pipe lines of opposite parties, 90 mm water supply, 350mm gravity main, IDTR 110mm main pump etc are drown in a single trench below the ground level but they also situate above the ground level. The submission of the opposite party is that all of these pipe lines have to be placed below the prescribed ground level and for that PWD permission as well a administrative sanction and fund is required and for that the plan is prepared and submitted before the concerned authority.  So, the opposite party also endorsed the allegation of the complainant the pipe lines are above the ground level against the   rules in this regard. The complainant submitted that the fact was brought to the opposite party years back but no action was taken.  The opposite party has not stated the period when the excavation work for the national high way was carried over. Hence what can be inferred is the allegation of the complainant is correct to the extended that the pipe lines are situate above the ground level against the rules. The opposite parties are bound to obtain administrative sanction and also other incidental technical sanctions from the concerned authorities.   If there is any lapse on the part of the opposite parties can be treated as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  It is well settled fact that drinking water and power supply are essential part of daily life of human being any latches in the matter have to be treated deficiency in service and which required immediate action. In this complaint, the complainant was vigilant on his right on water supply duly from the opposite party.  He preferred complaints before the opposite parties duly but there was no proper action to redress the grievance of the complainant.  The submission of the opposite party is that the non-supply of water to the complainant was not due to any willful deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the reasons are beyond the control of the opposite parties.  The submission of the opposite party cannot be accepted since they are regularly providing water bill without any reluctance. So, we find that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

15.       Point No.2

            The claim of the complainant is to provide compensation of Rs.30,000/- and cost of Rs.8,000/-. But the issue in this matter is to supply water to the complainant and also to the residents of the locality. The opposite party has submitted they have submitted a proposal to include in the panel for providing water supply to the complainant and the residents of the locality for the inclusion of state plan. It is also submitted that the concerned Thvanour gramma panchayat houses are included in “Jalajeevan Mission” scheme for providing house connection during the year 2020-21 worth Rs.40 crore. The submission of the opposite party is that as a part of the scheme the water pipe line can be replaced and the grievance of the complainant can be rectified. But it is to be noted that the opposite party already submitted the excavation of mud as part of National Highway work was done nearly about 4 to 5 years ago and the present project was obtained administrative sanction 2020-2021. But there is no indication of remedial steps during the advocate commission inspection on 2022 August 2^nd. It is also crucial to not that the complainant was not getting water during the August which is high rainy season in the state. So, the belated execution of projects, ignoring all the priorities amounts gross deficiency in service which entitles the complainant to prefer complainant due interference. The delay in implementing project like water supply scheme after obtaining administrative and technical sanction amounts dereliction of duty towards the public at large. The delay in carrying out of a scheme causes harassment to the public and causes burden to public exchequer.  So, it will be proper to implement scheme which is sanctioned by the authority. Hence the commission pleases to direct the opposite parties   to carry out / implement the project as stated by the opposite party to redress the grievance of the complainant within time bound manner.   It is well known fact that every scheme will be introduced to implement within a time limit. In this matter the opposite parties or the complainant has not produced any document to show the time limit granted for the implementation of the 40 crore rupees scheme. Hence what can be possible is to direct the implementation of the scheme within the stipulated period to redress the grievance of the complainant.  It is also relevant to allow compensation for deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties that is non-providing of water to the complainant for the last more than 5 months without any satisfactory explanation. Moreover, the opposite parties miserably failed to show that the complainant was providing drinking water during the Advocate Commission inspection and that too in the month of August, the heavy rainy season in the state. The claim of the complainant is only Rs.30,000/- as compensation and so, we allow the same amount as compensation.  The opposite parties also directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000 /-to the complainant. Hence in the light of above fact and circumstances we allow this complainant as follows: -

1. The opposite parties are directed to implement the scheme of Rs.40 crore, which has got administrative sanction for the year 2020-21 with in the stipulated period and thereby to provide regular water supply to the complainant without any failure.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
3. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which   the opposite parties are liable to pay 12% interest per annum on the above said entire amount from the date of complaint to till payment of the amount.

   Dated this 16^th day of November, 2022.

Mohandasan K., President

PreethiSivaraman C., Member

     Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A20

Ext.A1: copy of complaint dated 19/11/2020.

Ext.A2: copy of application under Kerala State Service Act dated 29/12/2020.

Ext A3: copy of appeal petition dated 19/01/2021 under Kerala State Service Act.

Ext A4: copy of second appeal under Kerala State Service Act dated 08/02/2021.

Ext A5: copy of reply issued by superintending engineer Malappuram Kerala water authority dated 09/03/2021.

Ext.A6: photograph of pipeline valve indicating closure of the same.

Ext.A7: photographs show the pipe line remains over the ground level.

Ext A8: copy of the order issued by superintending engineer dated 06/06/2019.

Ext A9: copy complaint dated 07/06/2019.

Ext A10: copy of reply dated 29/10/2019 issued by assistant executive engineer water authority Edappal.

Ext.A11: copy of Kerala Gazette / Kerala water authority notification dated 08/04/2013. 

Ext.A12: copy of letter issued to assistant engineer water authority Edappal .

Ext A13: copy of DD for 10 rupees.

Ext A14: copy of reply issued by assistant engineer water authority Edappal.

Ext A15: copy of decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 28/05/2009.

Ext.A16: copy of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala dated 15/03/2021.

Ext.A17: copy of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bangalore water authority case dated 05/05/2005.

Ext A18: copy of postal acknowledgment.

Ext A19: notice issued by water authority to the complainant dated 03/01/2022.

Ext A20: copy of photographs showing the meter reading

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1

Ext.B1: copy of the proceeding by the Superintending engineer Kerala Water authority under Information Act dated 07/04/2021.

Ext. C1: Commissioner’s report

Mohandasan  K., President

PreethiSivaraman C., Member

     Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member

VPH