CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

                                             Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

CC No.330/09

Friday, the 15th day of October, 2010

Petitioner                                              : K.V. Sebastian,

                                                             Zeon Restaurent,

                                                             Vaikom PO,

                                                             Kottayam.

                                                             (Adv. M.C. Suresh)

                                                        Vs.

Opposite party                                     : Asst.Executive Engineer,

                                                              Kerala Water Authority Office,

                                                              Vaikom PO, Kottayam.

                                                              (Adv.K.C. Ajithkumar)

ORDER

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

            The case of the petitioner, filed on 3-11-09, is as follows:-

            The petitioner is a handicapped person and running a restaurant in the name and style “Zeon Restaurant”, at Vaikom.  Petitioner conducted the said business for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self employment.  According to the petitioner he is a consumer of the opposite party water authority having a water connection, with vide consumer No.2161/UMC.  The petitioner is paying water charges regularly without any default.  The petitioner’s restaurant situates on the northern side of Vaikom - Kottayam PWD road and the opposite party is office  situates adjacent to the restaurant.  The main pipe line of the water authority passes to the southern side of the PWD road and under ground water connection is crossing the PWD road.  On 30/10/09 opposite party disconnected the water supply to the petitioner’s restaurant without prior notice and without assigning any reason.  Petitioner is shocked by the act of disconnection.  Petitioner enquired about the reason for the disconnection at the office of the opposite party and came to know that reason for the disconnection was leak in the main pipe line.  According to the petitioner there was no shortage in the quantity of water available to the petitioner and he did not notice any leakage, since the alleged site of leakage was on the southern side of the PWD road.  Even after disconnection there was leakage and the same is continued.  Petitioner on 30/10/09 submitted an application before the opposite party for reinstating the water connection.  But the opposite party did not turn up to repair the leakage.  Petitioner is ready to bear the cost of repair, but the opposite party did not heed to the just and proper request of the petitioner.  On 2/11/09 opposite party came to the spot and inspected the pipe line by removing soil and covered it  without repairing and reinstating water connection.  Opposite party also declared his intention not to reconnect the water supply by saying that he would permanently block the water supply as the complainant was habitual pursuer.  To the knowledge of the petitioner the leakage was at the point on the main pipe line from where the supply line to the complainant restaurant starts.  Petitioner reasonably believes that act of disconnection of water supply to the petitioner’s business premise is wilful and intentional to cause damage to the business of petitioner.  From 30/10/09 complainant is not able to run the restaurant. Due to the stoppage of business petitioner suffered loss amounting to Rs.2500/- per day towards wages and loss of the business.  Being a physically handicapped person petitioner suffered much mental agony and worry by disconnection of the water supply.  Act of the opposite party according to the petitioner amount to deficiency in service so,  petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party to reinstate the water connection of the petitioner.  Petitioner also claims Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

             Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable.  On 22/1/09 water supply connection to the petitioner’s premises was disconnected due to non remittance of water charges.  The same was reconnected on 24/1/09 as per the request of the consumer and after remitting dues to the KWA.  On 23/10/09 heavy leak at the connection point of the consumer was seen.  Notice was issued to the consumer to rectify the same through a licensed plumber.  He has not approached or enquired about the notice to any officials of the opposite party’s office upto 29/10/09.  In the above circumstances opposite party was forced to disconnect the water supply connection of the petitioner.  The petitioner is liable to repair the leak or any other repair works from the tapping point to the meter point through a licensed plumber of the authority.  Petitioner has not submitted any application for reinstalling the water supply connection.  The consumer is liable to repair the leak or any other repair works from the tapping point to the meter point through a licensed plumber of the authority.  Since the petitioner has not repaired the leak notice was issued to the petitioner stating that cost of the same will be recovered from the consumer.  Water supply connection was reconnected on 11/11/09.  Opposite party has no intention to harass the petitioner or block the water connection of the consumer.  Since the consumer has not taken steps to remit the water charges and maintenance charges, as per bill issued, authority was forced to disconnect the water supply connection.  According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they prayed for dismissal of the petition with their cost.

Points for consideration:

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Point No.1

            Crux of the case of the petitioner’s is that opposite party on 30/10/09 disconnected the water supply to the petitioner’s restaurant without prior notice and without assigning any reason.  Even after submitting an application for reconnection opposite party did not reconnect the water supply.  According to the opposite party on 23/10/09 heavy leak was seen at the connection point of the consumer.  Notice was issued to the consumer to rectify the same through a licensed plumber.   Petitioner had not approached to any of the officials of the opposite party office upto 29/10/09.  In the above circumstances  water supply was disconnected.  The consumer is liable to repair the leak or any other repair works from the tapping point to the meter point.  Opposite party denied the case of the complainant with regard to submission of application for reinstating the water  connection.

            The relevant provision with regard to disconnection of house connection is regulation 22 of Water Supply Regulation 1991. As per regulation 22 the Asst.Executive Engineer can disconnect the house connection if there is leakage of water reported at the premises.  As per regulation 18 of water supply regulation Asst.Exe.Engineer or any person authorised by him without any notice, reduce, restrict or stop the supply of water in any main for the purpose of repairs, under any exigencies.  When the stoppage is to  an extensive area the need for stoppage can be foreseen such previous intimation as is possible under the circumstances shall be given by publishing in a newspapers or otherwise.  As per section 45(3) of Kerala Water Supply Swerage act 1986, the authority may reconnect the water supply disconnected on payment of surcharges and on such  terms and conditions as provided by the regulation.  Here in this case according to the opposite party they had given notice to the consumer on 23/10/09 with regard to the leakage of water connection.  Opposite party produced a photocopy of the notice, which according to them is issued to the petitioner.  Counsel for the petitioner objected the marking of the document on the ground that no such document was issued to the petitioner.  Fora subject to its evidencery value  marked the same as Ext.B1.  Opposite party has not produced any despatch register or any document to prove that Ext B1 notice was issued to the petitioner.  Further more petitioner produced a copy of the complaint register kept in the office of the opposite party said document is marked as ext.A6.  From Ext.A6 it can be seen that on 31/10/09 petitioner had given complaint with regard to the disconnection of water supply.  In our view normally if a notice like ext.B1 was received to the petitioner, as a person who is running a restaurant will not neglect it.  Further more on 31/10/09 the petitioner had given an application for reconnection of the water supply.  From the said application it can be presumed that no such notice was issued by the opposite party. Petitioner has a definite case that on 31/10/09 opposite party disconnected the water supply and on the same day he submitted an application for reinstating the water connection. From  Ext A6 document it can be seen that petitioner had submitted an application for water connection.  We wonder how a responsible officer like the opposite party can file an affidavit stating that no complaint with regard to disconnection of water connection was received to his office.

            Opposite party has not produced any piece of evidence to prove the leakage was in between the tapping point and to the meter point.  It is interesting to note that the water supply connection was given only on11/11/09 that is after filing a petition, by the consumer, before the Fora.  Definitely without saying what had happened is a clear deficiency in service.

            We noted the casual and negligent conduct of the case by responsible public servant by filing affidavit suppressing the true facts.  The act of the opposite party without redressing the grievance of the consumer by taking a lackadaisical approach is a tell told story how a bonafide handicapped consumer was knocking the doors for rendering service of supply of water, which is most essential element to conduct his business.  On going through the entire evidence we are of the view that petitioner had suffered much mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss which has to be compensated by exemplary compensation.  We are of the view that awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- is reasonable.

            Next question to be decided is Who should pay the amount of compensation for the harassment and agony, whether the water authority? or should it be  realised from those who were responsible for it?  In our view for such acts or omission the loss suffered has to be made good by the authority itself.  But when sufferance is due to malafide act of a public servant then the nature of liability changes.  In a modern society  no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. It is unfortune that matter which require immediate attention linger and the man is street is made to run from one end to other with no result.  It is therefore necessary that fora is satisfied that petitioner entitled for compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recovered from the concerned official.  Firstly the department concerned pay the amount to the petitioner from the public fund immediately.  But to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately, when there are more than one functionaries.  So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No.2

            In view of the finding in point no.1  petition is allowed.  Petitioner is entitled for relief sought for

            In the result opposite party water authority is ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner along with a litigation charges Rs.1000/-.  We are of the view that the authority after making the payment of the amount to the petitioner should enquire and recover it from the pay of the delinquent officer and officers who have failed to provide service to the petitioner.  This would send a right signal to other likeminded delinquents who fail to discharge their lawful duties towards the genuine consumers.  Since admittedly the connection was already restored there is no need for allowing the said prayer.  Order shall be complied within one month of the receipt of the order.

            Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the15th.day of October, 2010.

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President  Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

Appendix

Documents of the petitioner

Ext.A1-Certificate issued by the Vaikom Municipality

Ext.A2-copy of application dtd 30/10/09

Ext.A3-Receipt of Kerala Water Authority dtd 22/1/09

Ext.A4-Receipt of Kerala Water Authority dtd 23/1/09

Ext.A5-Receipt of Kerala Water Authority dtd 15/12/09

Ext.A6-Copy of complaint Register

Documents of the opposite party

Ext.B1-Photocopy of the notice

Despatched on / Received on

By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

S/3cs