BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 67/2003 <br /> Dated : 30.05.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> P. Dharaneendran, P.D. Vilas, Karichel, Pulluvila P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> 1.Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Kanjiramkulam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> 2.Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By adv. P. Dileepkhan) <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 03.09.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 18.04.2008, the Forum on 30.05.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT<br /> The case of the complainant is that complainant is a consumer of 1st opposite party Water Supply Section, Kanjiramkulam, having consumer No. 1525. Complainant has taken water connection from the distribution pipeline of the 1st opposite party going through Pulluvila. On 26.11.2002 the said distribution pipeline was burst and water supply was disrupted in his area. On 01.12.2002 the contractors of the 1st opposite party repaired the service line. While doing the said repair work, complainant’s service line was cut off. This was brought to the notice of the complainant by the nearby resident Rajendran. On enquiry, the worker of 1st opposite party told the complainant that service line of the complainant was not cut off. When started pumping, complainant did not get water through the service line. When the fact was brought to the notice of the 1st opposite party, opposite party agreed to cure the defects in the said service line provided some amount will be given to the staff of 1st opposite party. No action was taken by 1st opposite party till 09.12.2002. But opposite party received the water charge in advance for the month of December. Since no action was taken by the 1st opposite party, complainant sent an application to 1st opposite party to return the remitted amount. On 13.12.2002, when contacted the 1st opposite party an employee was deputed by the 1st opposite party to measure the meter reading in complainant’s premise and the staff measured meter reading and reported that measurement was within the limit. Even then opposite party did not take any action positively. So complainant requested the 1st opposite party to disconnect the connection leading to his premises by way of an application. For disconnection complainant was insisted by the 1st opposite party to pay the minimum water charge for the month of January 2003, along with the disconnection cost of Rs. 65/-. On 29.01.2003 officials from the 1st opposite party came to complainant’s premise and disconnected the water connection leading to his premise. After disconnection opposite party returned the water meter to the complainant since the same was installed by the complainant with consent of the 1st opposite party. Opposite party did not return the advance amount collected from the complainant. Opposite parties are liable to pay the cost of pipes laid for connection and compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant. Hence this complaint claiming refund of amount collected by the opposite party in connection with disconnection, cost of pipes laid by the complainant, compensation and cost of the complaint. <br /> 1st opposite party filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts. It is true that complainant is a consumer of the 1st opposite party. Complainant had remitted minimum charge of Rs. 22/- till January 2003. On 04.12.2002 a complaint showing complainant’s residence’s pipe line was cut off was recorded by the complainant in the complaint book of the opposite party and on the next day, an enquiry was conducted by the 1st opposite party and found that complainant was not getting water through the service line. On 07.12.2002 1st opposite party directed the officer concerned to take steps to restore connection to the complainant’s residence. As per provisions of KWA, the expense for the restoration of connection must be met by the consumer/complainant since the block was developed between the distribution line and meter point. This could not be brought to the notice of the complainant since 08.02.2002 was a holiday. On 09.02.2002 complainant raised baseless allegations against 1st opposite party and requested to disconnect the connection. 1st opposite party distributes water covering eleven Panchayats. Whatever complaints opposite party receive, it will be resolved immediately. There was no delay in resolving the complainant’s complaint. On 13.01.2003 complainant applied for disconnection in proper form and on 15.01.2003 as per order of Assistant Executive Engineer, the opposite party disconnected the connection leading to complainant’s premise. This complaint filed after disconnection, with a malafide motive to defame the image of officials of the 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party filed version contending similar views of the 1st opposite party. In addition, 2nd opposite party claimed compensation and cost from the complainant. <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> (i)Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and costs.<br /> Complainant has been examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P5<br /> were marked. Complainant was cross-examined by opposite parties.<br /> Points (i) & (ii): - Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of 1st opposite party having Con. No. 1525. On 26.11.2002 water supply was disrupted due to pipe burst in complainant’s locality. On 01.12.2002 contractors of the 1st opposite party carried repair works in the distribution line. While doing the repair work, complainant alleged that the service line leading to the complainant’s premise was cut off. But workers of the 1st opposite party told the complainant that the bursting of service line was not of complainant’s line. The submission by the complainant was that when started pumping after repair works in his locality, all residents except complainant did get water. Hence complainant wrote a complaint in the complaint book of the 1st opposite party. It was submitted by the complainant that since no remedy was provided by the 1st opposite party complainant requested the 1st opposite party to disconnect the connection leading to complainant’s premise. PW1 deposed that he had remitted water charge in advance till the end of December. There is no material on record to show that complainant had remitted water charge in advance. Complainant had not disclosed in the complaint the amount remitted in advance. Ext. P2 is a photocopy of the receipt of Rs. 22/- dated 13.01.2003 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Nowhere in Ext. P2 is it mentioned that Rs. 22/- is the advance amount. Ext. P3 is a copy of the application for disconnection-dated 13.01.2003 lodged by the complainant. A perusal of Ext. P3 would reveal that complainant had requested the 1st opposite party to disconnect the connection leading to complainant’s premise, since complainant had shifted his residence. Nowhere in Ext. P3 is it claimed by the complainant to refund the remitted amount, rather what the complainant had submitted is to return the water meter to him after disconnection since the same was purchased and installed by him with the consent of the 1st opposite party. As per Ext. P4 opposite party had collected Rs. 65/- from the complainant as disconnection charge. Ext. P4 is the copy of receipt of Rs. 65/- issued by the opposite party. On cross-examination DW1 admitted that consequent on the application for disconnection, opposite party disconnected the connection leading to complainant’s premise on 29.01.2003. Since the said disconnection was at the request of PW1, no negligence or deficiency in service can be attributed to opposite parties with respect to disconnection. Ext. P5 is a photocopy of complainant’s/consumer’s premise card. As per Ext. P5 meter replacement was done on 07.08.2002, initial reading was 570 litre, meter reading was 16 KL on 28.09.2002 and it rose to 37 KL on 05.11.2002. A perusal of Ext. P5 would show that opposite party did not record the meter reading after 05.11.2002 till disconnection. It would be pertinent to note that water supply was disrupted on 26.11.2002 due to pipe burst. Opposite party did not deny it. Submission by the complainant is that he did not get water after the aforementioned disruption. No material on record to show that complainant had used water after 26.11.2002. As per Ext. P2 opposite party charged Rs. 22/- as water charge from the complainant for the month of January 2003. In the version, nowhere is it pleaded by the opposite party that complainant got water during December/January from the distribution line. On going through the records marked and evidence adduced by the complainant and opposite parties, it is evident that the amount of Rs. 22/- collected by opposite party as water charge from the complainant for the month of January 2003 is illegal. This would amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Opposite parties are liable to refund the said amount of Rs. 22/- as per Ext. P2 to the complainant. Considering all aspects of the complaint, submissions by the complainant and opposite parties and contents in version as well as the evidence on record, in our opinion an amount of Rs. 500/- as compensation would meet the ends of justice. <br /> In the result, complaint is allowed in part. Opposite parties are jointly and severally shall refund an amount of Rs. 22/- to the complainant. Further opposite parties shall pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 500/- towards compensation and Rs. 250/- as cost of the complaint. The said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum if not paid within two months of this order. <br /> 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.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30th May 2008.<br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 67/2003<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> PW1 - Dharaneendran<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - True copy of application dated 09.12.2002 to the Asst. Egnineer, Water Supply Division, Kanjiramkulam. <br /> P2 - True copy of receipt AF No. 705795 dated 13.01.2003. <br /> P3 - True copy of application for disconnection of Con. No. KJP – 1525 dated 15.01.2003.<br /> P4 - True copy of Rt AF No. 706437 dated 15.01.2003.<br /> P5 - True copy of consumer meter card of consumer No. KJP – 1525 dated 07.08.2002.<br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT