IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA

Dated this the 2^nd day of August, 2010.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)

C.C.No.29/09 (Filed on 02.03.2009)

Between:

1.     E.K. Gopinathan Nair,

aged 85 years,

Pekkavumkal House,

Noorommavu.P.O.,

Anicadu Village.

2.     Prasannakumar. A.C.,

aged 49 years,

C/o. E.K. Gopinathan Nair,

      -do.  –do.

(By Adv. T.S. Radhakrishnan Nair)                                  .....     Petitioners

And:

1.     The Executive Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

P.H. Division, Thiruvalla,

Thiruvalla. P.O.

2.     The Asst. Exe. Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

P.H. Sub Division,

Mallappally.P.O.,

Mallappally.

(By Adv. N.K. Chandrasekharan Nair &

 Adv.G. Ajit Kumar)                                                        .....     Opposite parties.

O R D E R

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member):

                   The complainants have filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from Forum.

                   2. The facts of the complaint is as follows:-  The 1^st complainant had taken a water supply connection as Con.No.AKD 396 from opposite parties under Anicadu Division.  2^nd complainant is the son in law who is residing with 1^st complainant and representing for the 1^st complainant.  The water connection was taken in the year 2001 and was regularly supplied small quantity of water till the end of 2004.  Thereafter numerous connections were made without increasing the capacity of the water tank at Noorommavu.  The monthly water charge of the complainant was ` 24 and minimum supply is 10000 litre.  The complainant has paid all monthly charges without any default.  Recently the monthly charge was increased to ` 48.  From the last more than three and a half years the opposite parties have not supplied the water regularly.  A number of representations in person and in writing were made to the opposite parties, but they failed to supply water.  On 16.1.09 the 1^st complainant sent a registered notice to the opposite party but no action has been taken them to redress the grievances of the petitioner.  There is a deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties hence the complainants filed this complaint for getting an order for directing the opposite parties to effect regular water supply to the complainant and for getting compensation for mental agony and hardships caused to them and for collecting charges for the period when there was no supply of water to the complainant along with cost.  The complainant prays for granting the relief.

                   3. The opposite parties have filed a common version stating the following contentions:  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The opposite parties have admitted the water connection obtained by the 1^st complainant.  This consumer is residing an elevated place and the connection has been taken from a branch line of 40 mm diameter from Kuttathumavu to Theekada distribution line was insufficient to reach water to the above said elevated portion at Manikattanpoika due to the increase of huge consumption in various places.  The consumer has obtained connection on 29.10.2001 a meter reading was taken on 3/05 and reading was 70 kl.  On 24.3.09 the meter reading shown as 437 kl. On the request of the consumer the opposite parties have carried out improvement work in order to improve the supply of water.  As a result of these works and continuous monitoring the water supply in the area where the petitioners are residing has been improved.  Now the petitioners are getting regular water supply. There is no willful latches or negligence from the part of opposite parties.  In order to further improve the water supply, a proposal has been submitted in the SLSC 2009 (State level sanction committee) but the approval has not been obtained.  As per the water supply rules and regulations the consumer is liable to pay minimum charge to maintain the water connection.  Otherwise he can disconnect on payment of ` 65 further water charge will not be claimed in future.  There is no deficiency in service from them hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

                    4. The point that arise for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as sought for in the complaint?

                   5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the 2^nd complainant as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4(a) marked for them.  For the opposite parties, 2^nd opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Ext.B1 and B2 marked.  After closure of the evidence, both sides heard.

          6. The Point:- The complainants’ case is that the 1^st complainant had obtained a water connection from the opposite parties in the year 2001.  From 2004 onwards the water supply was irregular.  Without supplying minimum quantity of 10000 litre water the opposite parties increased the water charge ` 48 from ` 24.  A number of representations in person and in writing were made but no action were taken by the opposite parties.  As such there is a deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties.  The complainant is entitled to get compensation for the collected water charges without supplying water and the mental agony and hardships caused to the complainants.  Therefore the complainants have filed this complaint for getting the relief prayed for in the complaint. 

          7. In order to prove the complainants case, 2^nd complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A4(a).  On the basis of the proof affidavit, 2^nd complainant is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4(a) marked.  Ext.A1 is the water meter reading card of the complainant’s water connection.  Ext.A2 is the water charge bill dated 18.2.09 issued by the opposite parties.  Ext.A3 is the copy of letter sent by the 1^st complainant to the opposite parties.  Ext.A4 and A4(a) is the receipts of Ext.A3.  Opposite parties counsel has not cross-examined PW1.

          8. According to the opposite parties, they have admitted the water connection provided to the complainant.  They have contended that the complainant’s are residing at an elevated place because there is an insufficient water distribution.  The opposite parties have carried out improvement work in order to improve the supply of water.  As a result now the petitioners are getting regular water supply.  There is no willful latches or negligence from the part of them.  As per the water supply rules and regulations the consumer is liable to pay minimum charges to maintain the water connection.  There is no deficiency in service and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite parties.

          9. In order to prove the contentions of opposite parties, 2^nd opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Ext.B1 and B2 marked.  Ext.B1 is the Consumer Personal Ledger copy from 3/05 to 19.1.2010 of the complainant’s water connection.  Ext.B2 is the calculation statement of the water consumption of complainant based on Ext.B1 ledger.  Complainant’s counsel has not cross-examined DW1.

          10. The complainant has taken the water connection in the year 2001 from the opposite parties.  The opposite parties have supplied the water regularly at the end of 2004.  After that more than three and a half years the supply was irregular.  According to the opposite parties, the complainant is residing at an elevated place because there is insufficient distribution of water.  The opposite parties have carried out improvement work in order to improve the supply of water and now the complainants are getting regular water supply.

          11. On going through the Ext.B1 and B2, on 3/5 meter reading shown as 70 kl and on 24.3.09 the reading shows 437 kl. and on 2.10.09 the reading was shown as 479 kl.  After that on 26.11.09 the meter was replaced.  Thereafter on 19.1.10 the meter reading shown as 33 kl.  From Ext.B1 it is seen that the complainant has consumed the water from 3/5 to 19.1.10 supplied by the opposite parties.  The minimum supply of water per month is 10000 litres.  Ext.B2 the calculation statement also shows that the complainant had consumed some quantity of water supplied by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties submitted that now the complainants are getting regular water supply.  The complainants are also admitted the fact.

          12. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we could not see any deficiency or willful laches from the part of opposite parties.  The complainants are residing in an elevated place because there is an insufficient water supply and now improved the water supply.  The improvement works has been done as per the request of the consumers and panchayat authorities.  As per the water supply rules and regulations the consumer is liable to pay minimum charge to maintain the water connection.  In the circumstances, we could not see any deficiency in service from the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for in the complaint.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          13. In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

          Declared in the Open Forum on this the 2^nd day of August, 2010.

                                                                                         (Sd/-)

                                                                                 C. Lathika Bhai,

                                                                                        (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)            :         (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)              :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Prasannakumar. A.C

Exhibits marked on the side of the complaiannt:

A1     :  Water meter reading card of the complainant’s water connection. 

A2     :  Water charge bill receipt dated 18.2.09 for ` 468 issued by the opposite 

              parties. 

A3     :   Copy of letter dated 16.1.09 sent by the 1^st complainant to the opposite 

              parties. 

A4 & A4(a) :  Postal receipts of Ext.A3.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  Stephen. P.V

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1     :  Photocopy of the Consumer Personal Ledger from 3/05 to 19.1.2010. 

B2     :  Calculation statement.

                                                                                      (By Order)

                                                                              Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) E.K. Gopinathan Nair, Pekkavumkal House, Noorommavu.P.O.,

           Anicadu Village.

(2)  The Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Division, Thiruvalla, Thiruvalla. P.O.

(3)  The Asst. Exe. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Sub Division,

            Mallappally.P.O., Mallappally.

       (4) The Stock File.