By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The complainant holds a water connection from the respondent vide consumer No.2017. The connection was availed on April 1998. And the complainant has been paying the water charges without making any default. She used to pay the water charge for a year in advance. But the complainant has not get water from the date of availing the connection. Even though she complained about it to the Assistant Engineer, Ollur no action was taken. So the complainant complained to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Irinjalakuda. The complainant got water due to this. After a year the supply of water was again stopped. The complainant’s house is situated at the beginning of a lower portion. So no water reaches at the higher portion. When she complained to the Assistant Executive Engineer he used to supply water to the connection using a stopper in the water line. After one year the stopper was removed and that is why the supply of water was again stopped. The complainant complained to the respondents to initiate action to supply water to her. But no action has been taken. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments are that it is denied that the complainant has not get water from the date of availing the connection and also it is not correct that the water was supplied to the complainant when she complained to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Irinjalakuda and the supply stopped within one year. It is also against the facts that water was supplied to the complainant by fitting a stopper at the pipe line. The disputed water connection is in the name of Smt. Karthiayani and the consumer has remitted water charges upto 3/2011.Water was supplied to this line through combined water supply scheme of BWSS Kuttanellur and BWSS Thelakulangara. Since the water became scarce in the Kuttanellur Bore Well the scheme was stopped. So it became very difficult to supply water in these areas. The respondents are empowered to disconnect the connection if the supply of water became scarce. It is not correct that the complainant got water when she complained to the Assistant Executive Engineer. There is no service connection or public tap after the complainant’s connection. A control valve was fixed at the line so that the complainant was supplied with water. But due to scarcity of drinking water it became difficult to supply water at all time. But water is being supplied from 2 p.m. to 2 O’clock in the morning. The complainant’s service connection was inspected and found that the valve lying closed. No legitimate right of the complainant has been denied. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Is there any deficiency in service by the respondents in this case?
(2) If so, reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. R1 and R2.
5. Points: The complainant’s case is that she is not getting water. She says that her house is situated at the beginning of a lower area and that is the reason for not getting water. When she complained to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Irinjalakuda about the non-supply of drinking water she got water. But it stopped within a year. The complainant has stated that the supply of water was made using a stopper in the water line. And it was removed after a year and that is why supply of water was again stopped. It is her request to supply sufficient water to her. The respondents denied the fitting of stopper in the line and removing it. The supply of water became very scarce in well and one of the BWSS was stopped. As a result of this the supply of drinking water in all the time became very difficult. Even then drinking water is being supplied for 12 hours a day in the disputed area.
6. The complainant is examined as PW1. PW1 has admitted that it is difficult to supply water in the disputed area. But she is in need of water in summer and it is her request to supply water to her. Ext. R1 also reveals that complainant’s water connection is at a higher level from the road level and also the source of water in the water supply scheme became very scarce. So it becomes difficult to supply water through the line. The complainant is paying water charges. So it is her legitimate right to get sufficient water. Since the respondents are receiving the charges of water it is their duty to supply water. But Ext. R1 reveals that the supply of water is insufficient. Hence the respondents failed to perform their service for which they are liable to pay for.
7. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to take immediate steps to supply water to the complainant within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 4th day of January 2013.
