Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> Petitioner’s case is as follows:<br /> Petitioner has got domestic Water connection with consumer No. 733/KLR from the opposite party. As charges for the connection he remitted Rs. 17/- in 1/96 and he remitted Rs. 22/- from 11/01 to 5/03. According to the petitioner he is not getting water for his requirementfrom 2000 on wards. The petitioner complaint the matter to the opposite party several times. As per the request by the petitioner the opposite party inspected the premises of the petitioner but no steps has so far taken for getting water. Petitioner has spent huge amounts for collecting water for his domestic purpose. So the petitioner stopped remitting water charges from 6/2003 onwards. Petitioner also states that if he is getting un-interrupted water supply he is ready to remit water charges without delay. So he sought reliefs supplies for directing the opposite party to <br /> <br /> -2-<br /> <br /> take necessary steps for supplying water to the petitioner and also for getting cost and compensation.<br /> The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contenting that petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party with consumer No.KLR/733 as alleged in the petition. The petitioner had taken the domestic connection on 28..12..1995. Petitioner had remitted water charges up to 5/02 and not up to 5/03. According to the opposite party sufficient water was given to the petitioner, even though the site of the petitioner is situated in a higher level, they also contended that due to the increase in the number of water connections in the lower area there is possibility for decrease in water flow to higher areas . The opposite party had taken maximum efforts to give adequate water to the petitioner. According to them there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. They contended that as per the meter reading it can be seen that sufficient water was given to the petitioner. So they pray for the dismissal of the petition with their costs.<br /> Points for determination are:<br /> i)Whether their any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii)Reliefs and costs.<br /> Evidence of the petitioner consists of his affidavit and Ext. A1 document.<br /> The opposite parties are consists of his affidavit B1 and B2 documents.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> -3-<br /> <br /> Point No. 1<br /> The petitioner’s definite case is that even though he was remitting water charges he is not getting any water from 2000. The opposite party on the other hand contented that the petitioner is getting water even though the petitioner’s residence is in a higher level. The opposite party produced a consumer ledger and the same was marked as Ext. B2. On perusal of Ext. B2 it is seen that the meter reading on 15..1..2002 is 508 K.L. On 15..10..2005 the reading is 622 K.L. and the consumption of water during the period of 2002 to 2006 is only 114 KL. In the version opposite party admitted that due to increase in number of water connection there was possibility of decrease of flow of water. So, considering admission of the opposite party and appreciating the evidence we are of the view that the petitioner’s case of not getting sufficient water is much probable. Water is a very essential for life and the main source for living comfortably. As a service provide opposite party has a bounden duty to give water up to the satisfaction of its consumer so, we are of the opinion that the act of opposite party in not giving adequate water amounts to clear deficiency of service. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of the finding in point No. 1, the petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled to get the relief sought for.<br /> In the result the petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. The opposite parties are hereby directed to take necessary steps to give <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> -4-<br /> adequate quantity of water to the petitioner. Opposite parties are also ordered to pay Rs. 500/- as the cost of the proceedings. Since there is no evidence with regard to loss or injury sustained to the petitioner, No compensation is ordered.<br /> This order shall be complied with within 2 months of receipt of this order. <br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of March, 2008.<br />