IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 16th day of May, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 170/2011 (Remanded)
Between:
Sreekumar. V.,
Sreenikethanam,
Thirumoolapuram P.O.,
Thiruvalla – 689 115. … Complainant.
And:
Asst. Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
Thiruvalla.
(By Adv. N.K. Chandrasekharan Nair) … Opposite party.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he is a consumer of the opposite party vide consumer No. TLD/6133/D and the said connection was provided by the opposite party on 08.03.2011. At the time of providing the connection, opposite party told the complainant that water will be provided only on Thursdays. But he did not got water even on the first Thursday as promised by the opposite party. So he contacted the concerned authority. Then he assured that the complainant will get water positively on the next Thursday onwards. Accordingly, he got water on that day only as assured by the opposite party. But thereafter he never got water. So he submitted a complaint before the opposite party on 16.04.2011 in this regard. But so far they have not done anything for providing water to the complainant. For getting the said water connection, complainant had spent an amount of ` 10,000. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable for the same to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting an order directing the opposite party for providing water to the complainant at least once in a week as assured by the opposite party.
3. In this case, opposite party was exparte. So the complainant’s evidence was taken and it consists of the oral deposition of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2. After hearing the matter, the complaint was allowed, thereby the opposite party was directed to provide water to the complainant at least once in a week and further directed to pay ` 250 per week, if the opposite parties fails to provide water as ordered by this Forum.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of this Forum, opposite party filed an appeal before the State Commission as Appeal No.21/12. In the appeal, the Hon’ble CDRC set aside the order of this Forum on payment of ` 6,000 to the complainant as cost and allowed the appellant/opposite party to contest the matter before this Forum and the case was posted to 07/03/2012 before this Forum.
5. But the opposite party has not turned up and complied the direction of the Hon’ble State Commission. Even then, this Forum had given four postings for the appearance of the opposite parties. But they failed to appear before this Forum and they have not complied the order of the State Commission. Hence this Forum is constrained to take the evidence of the complainant. Accordingly the complainant, adduced oral evidence as PW1. In the deposition, the complainant stated that his previous deposition and exhibits marked in the earlier stage may be incorporated as the evidence of this case at this stage also. Accordingly, the submission was allowed and the earlier deposition and the exhibits are incorporated as part of his evidence in this stage.
6. After considering the circumstances of this case and the evidences adduced by the complainant as well as in the earlier stage and in this stage and in the absence and non appearance and the non-compliance of the order of the Hon’ble CDRC by the opposite party, we find no reason to dismiss this complaint. Therefore, we find that the non-supply of water to the complainant as assured by the opposite party at the time of giving the connection to the complainant is a clear deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party.
7. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite party is directed to provide water to the complainant once in a week within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order and further directed to pay an amount of ` 400 per week from the date of filing of this complaint till providing water to the complainant at least once in a week and in the event of non-compliance of this order by the opposite party, the complainant is allowed to realize ` 500 each for one week from the date of filing of this complaint till the compliance of the order for providing water to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay the amount ordered by the Hon’ble CDRC to the complainant and in default, complainant is allowed to realize the said amount with 10% interest from today till the whole realization. The earlier judgment and the exhibits in this complaint also forms part of this judgment. In the nature and circumstances of this case, no orders for cost and compensation.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 16th day of May, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : V. Sreekumar.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of the complaint dated 16.04.2011 submitted by the
complainant before the opposite party.
A2 : Copy of Provisional Invoice Card dated 08.03.2011 issued by the
opposite party to the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Sreekumar. V., Sreenikethanam, Thirumoolapuram P.O.,
Thiruvalla – 689 115.
(2) Asst. Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority,
Thiruvalla.
(3) The Stock File.
