DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the  27^th  day of  February 2017

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                                  Date of filing:19/08/2015

               : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

                                                      (C.C.No.114/2015)       

Muhammed Ibrahim T.M

S/o.Muhammedkutty Rawther,

13/399, Tharakan House,

Chullimada,

Kanjikkode Post,

Palakkad – 678 621                                                 -        Complainant

(By Santhosh.T)

V/s

1.Executive Engineer

   P.H.Sub Division,

   Kerala Water Authority

   Palakkad – 678 001        

2.The Secretary

    Pudussery Grama Panchayath

    Grama Panchayath Office

    Pudussery, Palakkad                                           -        Opposite parties

(By Adv.K.A.Stanley James)    

O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R.  President.

Brief facts of complaint.

Complainant is subscriber of water connection bearing number 616/PDY of Kerala Water authority PH Sub division Palakkad. He subscribed the above connection on 8/1/1996. He used to pay the water bill promptly without fail. In the year 1998 the above said water connection was disconnected without any prior notice or intimation and without any reason. From the year 1998 onwards he is requesting the first opposite party to restore his water connection, which was disconnected without any reason. But the first opposite party repeatedly failed to restore the same with ulterior motive.

In the year 2012 and in the year 2015 he preferred complaints to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Kerala regarding the disconnection of his water connection. In reply of the above  said complaints, complainant received a letter dated 20/4/2015 from the first opposite party stating that his request to restore the water connection stands rejected. All the infrastructure for the water connection is still in existence and the first opposite party is supplying Malampuzha water from Kanjikkode water tank to Vattappara through the Highway. If the first opposite party is ready to open their valve situated at Chullimada. Complainant will also get the water since infrastructures are still available to his house. But the first opposite party purposefully evading from the same and filed to restore his water connection. The above said acts of the first opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and due to the deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party, he suffered much hardship, inconvenience and loss he was not having any water source other than the above said water connection. He was constrained to get water from his neighbours and finally that cause inconvenience to them and now he dug a bore well by spending huge amounts. All these happened only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. Hence the complaint. Complainant prayed for an order directing opposite party to pay compensation for mental agony and to restore the water connection.  Now it also revealed that the opposite parties had given water connection to some of his neighbours, recently. 

Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite parties. First opposite party appeared before the forum. But the second opposite party even after receiving the notice did not appear before the forum. Hence set exparte.

 First opposite party filed version contending the following:

This opposite party is an unnecessary party to this complaint. The consumer number of the complainant is PKD/616/D dated 1/2/1991 was disconnected and removed in the year 1998 in connection with PWD road work. In the year 1999 as per the scheme of Government, water distribution in that area was included in deposit work and the Pudussery Grama Panchayath dig a borewell at the place named Pettakkad and subsequently water connection  and distribution of water was done exclusively  by Pudussery Grama Panchayath. At present water connection and distribution of water in the area where the complainant resides is not under the control of this opposite party. Complainant has to approach Pudussery Grama Panchayath for restoration of water connection. This Opposite party has installed five bulk meter in Pudussery Grama Panchayath and the Panchayath is depositing water charges with this opposite party for the quantity of water used as per meter reading. This opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by complainant. As per water Authority Regulations Sec.42A Authority shall not be liable in any way for any loss or damages or suffering caused to any person by cutting of water due to draught or accidents or works relating to relaying or repairing of any water works or other un-avoidable causes. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. Hence complaint is to be dismissed.

Complainant and 1^st opposite  party filed their respective chief affidavit.  Ext.A1 to Ext. A8 were marked from the side of the complainant.  

The following issues are considered

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief?

Issue 1& 2.

1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant’s water connection was disconnected and removed in the year 1998. They contended that in the year 1999 as per the scheme of Government, water distribution in that area was included in deposit work and the Pudussery Grama Panchayath dig a borewell at the place named Pettakkad and subsequently water connection and distribution of water was done exclusively  by Pudussery Grama Panchayath. At present water connection and distribution of water in the area where the complainant resides is not under the control of this opposite party. As Pudussery Grama Panchayat i.e, the 2^nd opposite party remained exparte, the evidence tendered by the 1^st opposite party stands unchallenged. Moreover complainant did not adduce any evidence to rebut the version of the 1^st opposite party. In the above circumstances we came to the conclusion that 2^nd opposite party has the liability to give water connection to the complainant.

In the above circumstances we partly allow the complaint and direct 2^nd opposite party to give water connection after complying all the formalities required to get water connection by the complainant. Since we cannot attribute deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party, they are exonerated from the liability.  No order as to cost.   

Pronounced in the open court on this the 27^th  day of  February  2017.

                                                                                        Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President   

                          Sd/-

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

                         Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                 Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1   – Water Connection order dated 5/1/1996

Ext.A2   –   Provisional Invoice Card No.558

Ext.A3   –  Water meter card No.519687

Ext.A4 – Photocopy of letter dated 26/3/15  sent Hon’ble Chief Minister of Kerala

Ext.A5 – Photocopy of letter dated 20/4/15 to Exe.Engineer, PH Division KWA

             Palakkad(subject to proof)

Ext.A6 - Photocopy of letter dated 23/4/15 to the complainant by Asst. Exe.Engineer,

             PH Division KWA Palakkad(subject to proof)

Ext.A7 – Copy of letter dated 8/7/15 sent to Chief Minister of Kerala by the

              complainant

Ext.A8 – Reply sent to the complainant by the Chief Minister’s office dtd.6/8/15

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Nil

Cost   

No order as to cost