By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1. The complainant is a consumer under the opposite party and his consumer number is M56. The complainant is living in an area where appears water scarcity. The complainant availed water connection of the opposite party spending nearly Rs.10,000/-. The complainant was getting small quantity of water from the date of connection itself. He brought the matter before the opposite party. The complainant obtained water supply up to 2009 in a meager quantity. On submitting complaint before the opposite party, instead of increasing the supply of water it was totally stopped after 2009. The complainant states that were not got single drop of water thereafter.
2. The opposite party admitted realization water charges from the complainant without any break. Complainant was served a notice dated 07/07/2020 directing to pay Rs.2,227/- on or before 05/08/2020 without fine. The notice further contended that if the complainant fails to remit the amount his connection will be disconnected.
3. The complainant submits that due to non-supply of water by the opposite party, he is availing drinking water spending Rs.1,200/- per day from outside. The complainant submit that he is incurring nearly more than 1,30,000/- rupees per year for availing water from the outside. The complainant had filed complaints on several occasions and at last on 27/02/2020. In addition to that the complainant had filed a complaint before the chief minister honorable Ummanchandi during his “Janasmbarkka paripadi” on 17/11/2011. All the occasions the opposite party explained and assured that they will assure the availability of water to the complainant, but in effect no action has been taken and the act of the opposite party amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant approached this Commission seeking direction to the opposite party for providing water as required by the complainant. The complainant prays for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of expenses met by the complainant for availing drinking water from outside. The complainant prayed for the refund of entire amount collected from the complainant. The complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on account of inconvenience and hardship suffered by the complainant along with cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) .
4. On admission of the complaint notice was served on the opposite party and the opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
5. The opposite party denied the allegations in the complaint and submitted that the version is filed as part of official duty.
6. It is admitted that the complainant is a consumer under the opposite party and his connection was provided on 03/06/2002. But the averment that the area where the complainant is residing is not a water scarcity area as claimed by the complainant. The complainant had paid due amount to the opposite party at the time of wafer connection which does not comes up to 10,000/-. The opposite party admitted that he was getting water supply in minimum quantity but the contention that he was not getting water after 2009 is not correct. The opposite party admitted that the complainant was served notice for Rs.2,227/- dated 07/07/2020. The issuance of notice on nonpayment of bill is usual practice but the case of the complainant was considered in the Adalat held in 2020 March and it was waived off. The contention that the complainant availing water supply spending Rs.1,200/- per day is not correct. Likewise, his contention that he is spending 1,30,000/- per year and almost 15,00,000/- rupees already spent are all of use made of to file this complaint.
7. The opposite party submitted that it was usual to receive complaint from the locality of the complainant due to non-availability of water supply. But the allegation that the opposite parties are not taking steps to avail water is not correct. The opposite party submitted that they could supply small quantity of water to the connection of the complainant from 2011 to 2016 is correct. The complainant is getting water from Chelari water purification center and the pipelines drawn from that point has got some issues and due to maintenance work at Thalappara PWD road caused the obstruction for supply of sufficient quantity of water. The water connection to the residence of the complainant is from Kizhakkekundu Alinchuvade pipe line. The residence of the complainant is at the end portion of the supply. There is a scheme under Jalanidhi to find out permanent solution for the issue and on charging the said pipe line the grievance of the complainant will be addressed.
8. The opposite party further contended that there is an agreement between complainant and opposite party under water supply rules and regulations and as per the said rules the opposite party is not liable to pay compensation to the consumer in case of any obstruction take place in supply of water due to the defects of pipe line or any such reason. The opposite party is also empowered to disconnect the water connection. The opposite party had issued reply to the complainant at the relevant time. The opposite party is at liberty to disconnect this connection at any time when he prays. The opposite party submitted that the complainant not entitled for any relief as claimed. There is no any sort of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The opposite party is only liable to provide water supply in accordance with feasibility and availability of water.
9. The opposite party submitted that they are working under law and rules and all the acts are done in accordance with prevailing acts and rules. The opposite party availing electricity at higher charges and thereby suffering huge loss for providing water supply to the consumers in a low tariff. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is filed on experimental basis, misleading the Commission and so liable to be dismissed with the cost of the opposite parties.
10. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A8. The documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1and B2. Ext. A1 is copy of water bills issued by the opposite party to the complainant (five in number) Ext. A2 is copy of application issued by complainant to the opposite party dated 27/03/2018 and 27/02/2020. Ext. A3 is copy of reply issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 02/05/2018. Ext. A4 is copy of complaint filed by the complainant before the Hon’ble chief minister Mr. Ummanchandi. Ext. A5 is copy of reply issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 19/11/2011. Ext. A6 series are receipts, (7 in number) issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A7 is copy of statement issued by Kooriyad service station dated 03/01/2022. Ext. A8 copy of water bill / notice issued by opposite party to the complainant dated 15/018/2020 and demand and disconnection dated 13/01/2020. Ext. B1 is copy of agreement for the supply of water between the complainant and opposite party. Ext. B2 is copy of consumer personal ledger 2 pages.
11. Heard complainant and opposite party, persuade affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the side of opposite party.
- Relief and cost.
12. The grievance of the complainant is that he is living in an area where in he feels scarcity of drinking water and so he approached opposite party for connection of water supply from 2002 onwards spending nearly an amount of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant submit that he was provided water supply in a nominal level up to 2009. He submitted that he is not getting water duly from 2009 onwards but he is served with bills of water charges without any omission. He approached the opposite party and various authorities including the chief minister of the state with his grievance. All the occasions the opposite party extended explanation of various schemes and projects to address the grievance of the complainant but there was no sincere and effective attempt from the side of opposite party to redress the issue of the complainant. Ultimately the complainant approached this Commission based on notice issued by the opposite party directing to remit Rs.2,227/- on or before 05/08/2020. He prayed for the direction to provide drinking water for his domestic purpose as per his demand and compensation with cost.
13. The opposite party filed version and affidavit contending that there is no deficiency in service but their inability in providing drinking water to the complainant as per his demand due to scarcity of water as well as several other technical reasons. It is important to note that the opposite party admitted that the disputed bill for Rs.2,227/- was considered in the adalath held during 2020 march and the same was written off. But the complainant served notice for Rs.2,227/- on 07/07/2020. So, it is apparent that the act of the opposite party is without any care and caution. The opposite party is not authorized to issue a bill disputed in this complaint. Moreover, the documents produced by the complainant shows the various explanation issued by the opposite party to address the grievance of the complainant. Ext. A3, the reply given to the complainant dated 02/05/2018, Ext. A5, dated 19/11/2021 the explanation given by the opposite party to the district collector and to the complainant reveals the nature of assurance given by the opposite parties. But till the final hearing of the present complaint, the opposite party has not produced any document to establish the bonafides of the assurance given as per Ext.A3 and A5. The opposite party is a responsible agency of the government whom the public depends for the solution of water issue. But it appears for the last 14 years i.e., from 2009 to 2023 the opposite party could not touch the tip of the issue which the complainant face. The prayer of the complainant was to give direction to provide water supply to the complainant properly. But at the time of hearing his prayer was shifted to disconnection of the water connection of the complainant. The Commission finds apparent deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complainant was not provided water supply even after spending 10,000/- rupees for the last 14 years. In addition to that the opposite party issued water bills which was already written off in the Adalat.
14. The complainant claims compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and cost of the proceedings. He submitted that he was compelled to spend more than 1.30,000/- per year for availing water from other sources. But there is no evidence to prove the same. We find that the claim of the complainant as compensation cannot be treated as reasonable one, but baseless one. The availability of the water to the complainant depends on feasibility and availability of water source. So, we do not find the opposite parties liable to pay compensation as claimed by the complainant. But the complainant spends nearly 10,000/-rupees for availing water connection of the opposite party. The opposite party admitted the expenses but not admitted the exact amount of Rs.10,000/-. The Commission do not find Rs.10,000/-as an exaggerated amount on account of expenses for availing water connection. Considering the entire aspects and the documents, we allow this complaint partly as follows: -
- The opposite party is directed to disconnect the water connection No.56 of the complainant forthwith.
2) The opposite parties directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant on account of expanses met by the complainant for availing water connection.
3) The Commission set aside the notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 15/01/2021 towards arrears of water charges for Rs.2,389/- (Rupees two thousand three hundred and eighty nine only) which was stayed by this commission as per order in IA 84/2021 dated 21/04/2021.
4) The opposite parties directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy this order, failing which the opposite party is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the complainant from the date of complaint to till date of payment.
Dated this 24th day of April, 2023.
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A 8
Ext.A1: Copy of water bills issued by the opposite party to the complainant (Five
numbers)
Ext.A2: Copy of application issued by complainant to the opposite party dated
27/03/2018 and 27/02/2020.
Ext A3: Copy of reply issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated
02/05/2018.
Ext A4: Copy of complaint filed by the complainant before the Hon’ble chief minister
Mr. Umanchandi .
Ext A5: Copy of reply issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated
19/11/2011.
Ext.A6: Receipts 7 in number issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ext.A7: Copy of statement issued by Kooriyad service station dated 03/01/2022.
Ext.A8: Copy of water bill notice issued by opposite party to the complainant dated
15/01/2020 and demand and disconnection notice dated 13/01/2020.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: DW1 and DW2
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1
Ext.B1: Copy of agreement for the supply of water between the complainant and
opposite party.
Ext. B2: Copy of consumer personal ledger 2 pages.
