DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 27th day of January 2014
Present: Smt.Seena.H. President
Smt.Shiny.P.R. Member
Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of Filing : 19/06/2013
CC No.117/2013
Leela Krishna Menon,
S/o.Late Vasudeva Menon,
Asianet Cable Vision,
News Co-ordinator,
Residing at
Panchajanyam,
Engineering College Road,
Mangalam Post,
Lakkidi Koottupatha,
Ottapalam Taluk, Palakkad.
(By Adv.V.K.Venugopalan) - Complainant
Vs
1.State of Kerala
Rep.by Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
Palakkad.
2.The Assistant Engineer,
Kerala State Water Authority,
P.H. Section, Palappuram Post,
Ottapalam Taluk, Palakkad - Opposite parties
(By Adv.K.A.Stanly James)
O R D E R
Order by Smt.Suma.K.P. Member.
The complainant in the above matter hold water connection from the 2nd opposite party as consumer No.L948 prior to 1 year before filing of this complaint. There is absolutely no water supply to his house. Water bills were paid in time. Due to non supply of water in summer season he had to get water from distant places in tankers expending huge sums. Repeated complaints were neglected by the opposite parties. To his written complaint made on 27/5/2013 a reply has been received from the 2nd opposite party on 7/6/13 stating that water is in short and by changing the inlet pipe to larger dimension some of the houses could be supplied with water and it is for the complainant to do the needful by clearing the blockage in the water pipe lines that might have been blocked, in respect of his connection with the consent of the water authority and employing licensed plumbers. The complainant alleges that opposite party themselves are blocking the licensed plumbers from rectifying the defect in the pipe lines. He submits that he is ready to rectify the defect at his expenses. But due to callous attitude of the 2nd opposite party it is not getting materialized for the past so many months. Reply received is only a rouse to escape from the responsibility. He also submits that he is ready and willing to pay the cost to the opposite party or to the plumbers. But it is for the opposite parties to arrange for it. The acts and omissions on the part of the 2nd opposite party amount to clear deficiency in service which creates great inconvenience and mental agony. Therefore complainant has approached before this forum seeking a prayer directing to order the 2nd opposite party to do the needful to rectify the defect and reinstate the supply of water to the house of the complainant and also to order a compensation of Rs.20,000/- which complainant has to spent for purchasing water from tankers alongwith Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered and cost of the proceedings.
Notice was issued to opposite party. 2nd opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating the following contentions.
First opposite party is an unnecessary party to the proceedings since 2nd opposite party is not functioning under the first opposite party. Complaint is not maintainable on facts and law. Complainant is not a consumer under opposite parties. Water connection consumer No.L948 is not in the name of complainant. As per records of the opposite party consumer No.L948 is Sri.V.L.Balasubramanian, Vadakke Madam, Mangalam (PO), Lakkidi. It is also incorrect to state that the due to non supply of water in summer season complainant has to get water from distant places in tankers spending huge sums. Eventhough the complainant is not the consumer for the letter given by the complainant, 2nd opposite party has given a reply stating about the reason for scarcity of water and also the remedy to rectify it. 2nd opposite party has inspected the place and an additional pipe line was installed thereby the consumers in that area got sufficient water. All water connection on that area including L948 was thoroughly checked. 2nd opposite party find that due to usage of old worn out pipes there is no free flow of water through that pipes. Consumer No.L948 water connection was taken on 14/10/2004 from Lakkidi Perur water supply scheme which was commissioned in the year 1979. As per water supply and Sewerage Act, from main pipe line to distribution pipe up to water meter is to be maintained by the consumer by his own costs by a licensed plumber after getting permission from Kerala Water Authority. This fact was communicated by 2nd opposite party to the complainant and other consumer who claimed deficiency in water supply. Except this complainant, other consumers cleared the block in the distribution pipe with the help of Sri.Jayapalan, who is the authorized contractor cum plumber of opposite party. Instead of removing the block in the water pipe complainant threatened this opposite party with dare consequences and stating opposite party will be dragged before the Consumer Forum. Private distribution pipe line is to be maintained by the consumer at the cost of consumer by an authorized plumber after getting sanction from the opposite parties. If the consumer finds it difficult to carry and maintain work at his own, the work will be done by the opposite parties provided the consumer deposits necessary charge with opposite party for maintenance. It is false to state that the opposite parties are blocking the licensed plumber from rectifying the defect in the pipe lines. The complainant was never ready to rectify the defect in the pipe line by his own expenses. Opposite parties are even now ready to clean the pipe lines of the complainant if the complainant deposits the necessary maintenances expenses with the opposite parties. Hence there is no deficiency in service or omission on the part of opposite parties. It is incorrect to state that complainant has spent Rs.20,000/- to get water through tankers. Complainant is not entitled to get any amount as compensation as claimed in the complaint. Hence complaint has to be dismissed with cost.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext.A1 to Ext.A9 were marked. Opposite party filed chief affidavit and Ext.B1 & B2 marked on their side.
Matter was heard.
Issues that arise for consideration are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- If so what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to ?
Issue 1 & 2
Opposite party in their version as well as in the affidavit had stated that the complainant is not a consumer as the connection stands in the name of V.L. Balasubramanian. From Ext.A1 it is evident that complainant's father had purchased the property from V.L. Balasubramanian in the year 2007 and from Ext. A2 it is seen that his father had bequeathed the property in favour of the complainant in the year 2008. Hence the contention that complainant is not a consumer under opposite parties cannot be looked into. It is evident from Ext. A6 and Ext. A7 that there is scarcity of water of the complainant. Opposite party had admitted that water is in short and by changing the inlet pipe to a larger dimension supply of water can be rectified. It is for the complainant to do the needful by clearing the blockage in the water pipe lines that might be blocked with the consent of opposite party and employing a licensed plumber. Since water connection was taken in the year 2004, there is no free flow of water through the pipe of the Consumer No. L948 due to use of wornout pipes.
As per Water Supply and Sewerage Act, from the main pipe line to distribution pipe up to water meter is to be maintained by the consumer at his own cost by a licensed plumber after getting permission from Kerala Water Authority. This fact was communicated by second opposite party to the complainant through Ext. B2. If the consumer finds difficult to carry out maintenance work at his own, the work will be done by the opposite party, provided the consumer deposit necessary charges with opposite party for maintenance. The complainant produced Ext. A8 to prove that he had deposited necessary charge with opposite party for maintenance expenses on 26/11/2013.
In the light of above circumstances, we direct the opposite parties to clean the pipe line of the complainant by receiving necessary maintenance expenses from the complainant. The allegation of the complainant is that he had spend Rs. 20,000/- to get water through tankers has not been proved before the Forum. In view of the above facts, we direct the opposite parties to make necessary arrangements to clean the pipe line of the complainant and provide water supply to the complainant and also to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.5,000/- from the opposite party. The complaint is partly allowed with no order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 27th day of January 2014
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R.
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 Attested copy Jenm Assignment Deed executed by V.L. Balasubramaniam in favour of M.K. Vasudeva Menon dated 7/8/2007.
Ext. A2 Photocopy of Registered Bill executed by M.K. Vasudeva Menon dated 9/1/2008 at Ottapalam SRO.
Ext. A3 Receipt issued by KWA in respect of consumer No.L948 dated
7/8/13.
Ext.A4 Receipt issued by KWA in respect of consumer No.L948 dated 1/9/2012.
Ext.A5 Newspaper Report in Mangalam Daily dated 27/7/2013.
Ext.A6 Copy of Lawyer Notice issued by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party dated 27/5/2013.
Ext. A7 Reply Notice received from the 2nd opposite party to the complainant dated 7/6/2013.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Ext.B1 Request letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated 27/5/2013.
Ext.B2 Reply to the letter send by the opposite party to the complainant dated 7/6/2013.
