SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
This consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking to get an order directing opposite party to pay compensation and cost of the proceedings alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
The complainant’s grievance is that she had taken water connection from OP by No.NDL 085 on 04/02/2012. The averment of the complainant is that till 01/02/2018, water supply was made by OP and she made payment to the bill issued by the OP without any delay. The main grievance of the complainant is from 01/02/2018, water supply is not made to the complainant. She requested OP through phone many times but all were in vain and on 01/03/2018 she made demand in writing to OP to make arrangement to supply water to complainant. Complainant alleged that though she made written complaint, OP had not turned up to check the water connection, and not redressed her grievance. Hence she claimed compensation from the OP alleging that for each month she had to spent Rs.3000/- for collecting water from outside from 01/02/2018 on wards and also requested to get Rs.9000/- towards compensationRs.10,000/- towards mental agony together with cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party filed version and contested the complaint. According to opposite party the water supply could not be made to the complainant and nearby places due to the work of Ulikkal- Cherupuzha Malyaora Highway road. It is also pleaded that after the work from 10/04/2018 onwards the water supply was reinstated. OP further pleaded that because of drought season from January onwards OP could not supply sufficient water to consumers uninterruptedly. After that due to sufficient water from summer rain in the month of April, proper supply of water was done.
Further stated that from the meter reading of complainant it was realized that the water consumption of complainant in February 22 was 544 KL and on 07/06/2018 consumption was 582 KL and on 07/06/2018 consumption was 582 KL which means complainant got supply of water on the draught season. Opposite party contended that the supply of water was blocked for some period was not due to the fault on their part but it was due to some technical problems for that opposite party is not liable to compensate to the consumers as per clause 14 of the agreement executed between both parties at the time of taking the water connection. Hence opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A6. On behalf of opposite party Assistant Executive Engineer filed affidavit and marked Ext.B1 and B2. Through Dw1 complainant’s side marked Ext. A5 to A11
We have perused the record placed before us from the side of both parties and considered the submissions of the counsel of complainant in the argument note. Here there is no dispute that the complainant had taken water connection from OP and thus she is a consumer opposite party corporation. Further admitted that till 01/02/2018 complainant had made payment of water bill. Further OP also admitted that from 01/03/2018 there was some discontinuance of water supply happened in supply of water to complainant. Opposite party contended that the supply of water was reinstated from 10/04/2018 and from the meter reading of complainant on 22/02/2018 consumption showed 544 KL. But Ext.A2 series Demand cum disconnection notice dated 21/02/2018 produced from the side of complainant shows meter reading was 576.
Further opposite party produced Ext.B2 document the consumer details of the complainant from 31/05/2015 to 16/07/2022. During cross-examination of Dw1, it is revealed that the entries in the Ext.B2 regarding meter reading of the complainant are not correct. It is seen that the meter reading on 22/02/2018 is not stated in Ext.B2 and the status noted as door locked, which was oppose by the complainant. During cross-examination it is revealed that Dw1 could not give a plausible answer to many questions asked from the side of complainant. Further OP has submitted Ext.B1 Agreement for the supply of water from RWS scheme and submitted that as per clause 14 of Ext.B1 opposite party is not liable for discontinuous of water supply due to reasons beyond their control. It is argued from by OP that there was break down of water pipe line happened due to work from 01/03/2018 and due to drought season, sufficient water supply was not made. Here opposite party claims that from 10/04/2018 there was no discontinuous of water supply. During cross- examination of Pw1, she was vehemently denied the said contention of OP. According to complainant there was discontinuous of supply of water for a period of 2 years from 01/03/2018 till 31/01/2020. Ext.A8 the report of Assistant Engineer submitted before the commission as per direction shows that the scheme of supply of water to complainant was altered from RWSS to state plan and on 31/01/2020 there was sufficient supply of water to complainant’s water connection. It is also stated in Ext.A8 that the meter reading of complainant’s connection on 31/01/2020 as 595 KL. From Ext.A8 the complainant’s argument that the consumption of water during the two years from 21/02/2018 to 31/01/2020 was only 19 KL, is found correct. Through Ext.A2 bill and Ext A8 complainant has proved her allegation against OP. Here OP failed to substantiate that the supply of water to complainant became discontinued till 31/01/2020 due to the reasons beyond their control. More over Ext.A10 and Ext.A11the water bill issued by OP to nearby consumers of complainant shows that there was supply of water, during the disputed period. Hence OP cannot claim the benefit of clause 14 as mentioned in Ext.B1 agreement. Ext.A1 shows that complainant had given written complaint to OP about the non-supply of water to her.
Here from the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case there was deficiency on the side of OP in supply of a continuous water supply to complainant during the period from 01/03/2018 to 30/01/2020. So OP is liable to compensate the complainant. Here complainant claimed that she had to spent Rs.3000/- per month during the relevant period for collecting water from outside by engaging labourer. For that there is no evidence available before us. Hence we are not inclined to allow the said prayer of complainant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, Op is liable to compensate their deficiency in service and for the mental agony happened to the complainant and her family due to the deficiency of service of OP.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and also Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceedings of this case. Opposite party shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which Rs.10,000/- carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Complainant is at liberty to file execution application against opposite party for realization of the awarded amount as per provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exhibits.
A1 - Complaint dated 01/03/2018
A2 - Bill and receipt
A3 - Complaint dated 11/06/2018
A4 - Reply dated 19/06/2018
A5 - Bill (Demand notice)
A6(series) - Bill
A7 -Copy of complaint issued to the OP
A8 -Report of Assistant Engineer
A9,A10 &A11 -Bills
A8 -Report of Assistant Engineer
B1 - Agreement
B2 - Bill (marked with objection)
Pw1 - Complainant
Dw1 - OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
