By  Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President :

          Complainant’s case is that the complainant has a  water connection vide consumer No.1210.  The complainant and family is using the water supplying by Kerala Water Authority for the entire purposes.  It is realized that there is presence of coliform  bacteria  in the water.  It is found out on the water  survey conducted by Malayala Manorama newspaper daily and Indian Institute  of Science, Bangalore.  The presence of  coliform  bacteria at 99% was found in tap water samples.  The presence of such bacteria  is dangerous and will cause grievous diseases.   The supply of water which is containing coliform bacteria is a deficiency in service of respondents.  Hence the complaint.

          2. The counter averments in brief are that the basis of complaint is the presence of coliform bacteria in the water supplied by respondents.  It is alleged that it was found out from the water survey conducted by Malayala Manorama daily and Indian Institute of Science.  It is not made clear  whether the survey conducted is scientific or not.  There are no documents submitted with the authenticity of the survey.  The complainant did not submit any report to show the presence of P.F.B in the water using by him.  The complaint is baseless.  It is incorrect that the respondent is supplying the water containing P.F.B.  This respondent is a public  sector undertaking which is supplying  pure drinking water in lowest rate.  There are approximately 11 lakh water connections  in the State and public  taps of 2 lakh.  Water is supplying  after due chlorination.  The water authority is conducting proper maintenance of the pipes.  The works of unskilled private workers, cable workers, BSNL and PWD works are causing damage to pipes of Kerala water authority.  In such cases KWA is supplying water by due chlorination on  curing the damage.  The water  supplying by KWA is  pure water and there are 14 quality control  labs in the  State.  The labs are ensuring the purity  of water.  The complainant has no case that KWA is supplying water to complainant  containing coliform bacteria. So he is not the consumer.  Hence dismiss.

          3. Points for consideration are that :

1) Whether there was any deficiency in service committed by respondents?

2) If so reliefs and costs ?

          4. Evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exhibit P1.  No evidence adduced by respondents.

          5. Points: The case is that the complainant  has a water connection from the respondents and he is using the water supplied by Kerala Water Authority for all the purposes.  The complainant stated that it is found the presence of  Coliform Bacteria(hereinafter mentioned CFB)  in the water supplied by KWA.  So he wanted to direct the respondents to  distribute the water without containing CFB and also to replace the pipes in time and also to clean the water tanks.

          6. The respondents filed a detailed version and denied the presence of CFB in the water supplied by them.  According to respondents they are ensuring purity of water and there are 14 labs in the State and the labs are ensuring purity of water.  More over the respondents would say that there is no personal injury to complainant and so the complaint is not maintainable.

          7. It is seen that there is no personal injury to complainant and he has no case that the water supplied to him contained CFB and he has suffered disease or other such discomforts.  He is examined as PW1 and he deposed he was suffered from discomforts like vomiting and consulted doctor. But there is not at all any evidence in this regard  and there is no averment in the complaint also.  The water provided to him was not inspected.  So it cannot be said that the impurity of water was the reason  for disease if any.  It is admitted by him in the box that there is no document produced to show the water issued to him was contaminated.  So it is seen that the complaint is without any reason and basis.  As stated by respondents he is not  the consumer also. It is true that  reliefs sought by him are very important and highly essential for the existence of the society.   The intention of complainant is very genuine and should be appreciated.  But the Consumer Forum is not the proper Forum to redress such remedies.  So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          8. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.

           Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the   19^th  day of March          2014.