BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.175/2008

Between

Complainant : Chandi S/o Mathai,

Kanjiram Tharappel House,

perumthotti P.O.

Perumthotti, Idukki.

(By Adv: Biju Vasudevan)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Binoy S/o Cheriyan,

Thenakarayil House,

President, Perumthotti Drinking Water Committee,

Perumthotti P.O., Idukki.

2. Philip S/o Mathai,

Pallithazhathu House,

Secretary, Perumthotti Drinking Water Committee,

Perumthotti P.O., Idukki.

(Both by Adv: P.A. Suhas)

O R D E R

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

The complainant is one of the beneficiaries of a drinking water scheme of which the 1st opposite party is the President and the 2nd opposite party is the Secretary. The scheme was introduced for providing drinking water and the complainant joined the scheme in 2007. The monthly subscription was Rs.50/-. He had spent Rs.650/- for meeting the expenses for pipe, labour charge, etc., and he worked there 20 days without any payment. Without any notice, the opposite party had stopped supply to the complainant in April 2008, and thereafter the complainant was bringing drinking water through vehicles for which the expense of Rs.20,000/-. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, the complainant has been filed for a direction for restoration of the water supply and also for compensation.
 

2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is contended that no amount was deposited as security by the complainant nor any amount had been expended by him for the construction of the water supply scheme. The scheme was registered on 13/04/2008 under the Act of 12th Thiruvithamkur - Kochi Sahithya, Sasthriya, Charitable Societies. The monthly subscription has been enhanced due to the maintenance of the motor, running of the scheme, etc., and it was done as per the decision of a General body. The supply to the complainant was disconnected because the complainant had acted against the condition of the scheme. He had unauthorizedly tapped water from the pipe line. But since he had not complied with the direction, the supply was disconnected. On 04/11/2008, the opposite party restored the supply of water. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation or other relief.
 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.P1 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Ext.R1 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
 

5. The POINT:- The main question involved in this case is whether there was any basis for the allegation of the opposite party that the complainant had tapped water from the pipe line unauthorizedly. The complainant has a case that he had spent Rs.650/-. The opposite party would deny such amount. Now the dispute relates about the disconnection of the water supply. The complainant has given evidence as PW1. Ext.P1 is the receipt as Rs.50/- issued by the opposite party on 23/04/2008. In cross examination, he admitted that the water supply connection was restored as per an interim order of this Forum. He has only one tank which holds 300 liters of water. DW1 is the member of the Drinking water scheme, who stated that the water supply to the complainant was disconnected because the complainant has acted against the conditions of the scheme. It was done as per the decision of a general body consisting of 18 Consumers. He had unauthorizedly tapped form the pipe line. Ext.R1 is the copy of the Minute book. But it is not believable because the original Minute book is not produced before the Forum. So her evidence is of no use to support the evidence of the opposite party. Therefore we believe the case of the complainant and find that there is non-supply of water through the pipe line and he is entitled to the direction prayed for. In the circumstances of the case, he is entitled to the cost of this petition, which we would fix at Rs.1,000/-. Any how during the pendency of this petition, the water supply connection was restored as per an interim order of this Forum and the complainant is entitled to continue enjoyment of the connection.

In the result, the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to re-connect the water connection to the complainant within 15 days and to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs of this petition within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default .

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2009.
 

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Chandi

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - Regeena Tomy

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Receipt for Rs.50/- dated 23/04/2008.

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - True copy of Minutes of the Committee