THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C. 99/2011
Dated this the 2nd day of November 2016
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
Present: Joseph Mathew, Member:
This petition is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Petitioner’s case is that, she is a domestic Consumer of the opposite parties having Consumer No.K.28/269/D. She had deposited 1 year Water charger in advance and was not a defaulter of water charges. Even then her water connection was disconnected by the opposite parties for the last 5 months for no fault of her own. When approached the opposite parties they told that the supply was disconnected due to the cracks in the main pipeline at Mavoor and they are trying to reconnect the same at the earliest. But later it is found that all other connections in that area except her own are reconnected by the Opposite parties and started supplying water. Again she approached the opposite parties and they admitted that the supply was disconnected due to a mistake on the part of their workers. Thereafter she had submitted a written complaint before the 1st opposite party and as such he had sent a private worker who had no connection with the opposite parties to her house and he informed that she has to complete all the formalities as if taking a new connection for getting reconnection and demanded to deposit Rs.2000/- at first and to pay the amount if any whenever they demands.
The petitioner alleged that the demand for Rs.2000/- for reconnecting her water supply is only to penalize her as she had already paid the required amounts while taking connection at first. So also though there is no water supply now they are debiting water charges from her deposit amount with them. As the disconnection is for no fault of her own, the opposite parties are bound to reconnect the same at their own expenses. The demand for further amount in giving reconnection and collection of water charges during the period of disconnection is unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and this caused much mental pain, financial loss and other difficulties to her. Hence this petition is filed to direct the opposite parties to restore the water supply immediately at their own cost and to credit the illegally collected water charges to her account and to pay compensation for her sufferings and also cost of the proceedings to her.
The opposite parties filed version with the following contentions. Admittedly the petitioner is a consumer of them having consumer No.K.28/269/D. It is also admitted that a written complaint was received by the 1st opposite party from the petitioner regarding reconnection of water supply to her house. They submitted that, earlier water connection to the petitioner’s house and other nearby residents was from an 80mm AC Pipe line. Due to oldness and continuous cracks in that main pipe line, this was replaced by new pipes after intimating the matter to all the consumers there. All others except the petitioner has taken connection from the new service pipe line at their own expenses and are getting water supply. It is also submitted that while their meter reader inspected the house of the petitioner, water meter was found faulty, but since the house was closed they could not intimate this matter to the petitioner personally. As per the “water supply and sewerage Act, water connection from the service line to the domestic line is to be taken by the consumers at their own expense through a licensed plumber. This fact was intimated to the petitioner on several times and in reply to her written complaint, but she was not ready to bear the expenses for reconnecting the domestic connection from the main service line. Their licensed plumber Sr.Giridharan approached her and informed all these facts to her, but even then she was not ready to meet the expenses. So it is submitted that only the lack of bonafides and egoism which prevented the petitioner from availing their services.
They further submitted that, they have no intention to collect water charges for the period of disconnection and it was already informed to the petitioner in their reply to her written complaint. All other allegations of the petitioner were denied by the opposite parties as false and frivolous. There is no deficiency in service on their side as alleged and hence prayed to dismiss the petition with cost to them.
Evidence consists of the affidavits filed by both the parties, Exts.A1 to A7, B1 to B3 and depositions of PW1 & RW1.
In her affidavit the petitioner averred that the opposite parties have disconnected her water supply for no fault of her own and for the last 1 ½ years she was not getting drinking water. Now they are demanding amount for reconnection. As she had met all the initial expenses for the installation of pipes and other fittings, the opposite parties are bound to give reconnection at their own expenses, and the demand for an amount in giving reconnection amounts to unfair trade practice. In turn the opposite parties averred that as per ‘water supply and sewerage Act’ connection from the main service line to the domestic line is to be met by the consumers themselves. They further stated that the matter of replacing the old line and the fact that the consumers have to take necessary steps for connecting their domestic connection to the replaced new main line at their own cost was intimated to all the consumers in that area well in advance. They produced the copy of the notice pasted at her house in this regard dtd.14.10.2010 and was marked as Ext.B3. All other consumers in that area have taken connection at their own cost. But the petitioner alone was not ready to meet this expenses and that is why they have not reconnected water supply to her house.
There is no dispute that the old main service line was replaced with new pipes. The only issue to be decided is who has to bear the expenses for the installation of pipe line from the main line to the premises of the consumer whether it is new connection or reconnection. Sec. 8(f) of Kerala Water Authority(Water supply) Regulations 1991 reads “ The Asst.Exe.Engineer or any one authorized by him may suo moto undertake or arrange repairs or alterations to any house connection after issuing a notice in Form No.III to the owner or occupier of the premises calling upon him to deposit the estimated cost of the repairs or alterations”. As per this section the opposite parties can demand deposit of estimated cost of the repairs or alterations to any house connection after giving notice to the party. Reconnection occurs due to some alterations in the line. Ext.B3 proves that the opposite parties have intimated the matter through notice to the petitioner in this regard. The petitioner has a case that she has not received Ext.B3 notice as stated by the opposite parties. In her deposition it is stated by her that, nobody will be there at the house during day time and so this may be the reason for not knowing the matter by that time. For arguments sake if it is admitted, further she would say that the opposite parties have sent a licensed plumber to me and due to scarcity of money I had not paid any amount (page 3 PW1). This shows that she had known the facts by that time, from this plumber. So also the petitioner has not adduced any evidence or examined any person from her neighborhood to prove that, the nearby households got reconnection at the expense of the opposite parties or to rebut the averments of the opposite parties that all the nearby residents took reconnection at their own expenses. So the petitioner had failed to prove her allegation that giving reconnection at their own expense is the bounden duty of the opposite parties. The Fora can inspect whether the opposite parties have acted against their rules or regulations and can take action if so, but we cannot go beyond the rules prevailing or direct the opposite parties to give connection at their own expense against the law. Hence the 1st prayer of the petitioner can not be allowed.
It is admitted by the opposite parties that the water meter of the petitioner was not working from 16.04.2005 onwards and undertook in their version and affidavit that they will not collect any water charges from the petitioner during the period of disconnection. The petitioner alleged that the opposite parties are debiting water charges from the deposited amount during the period of disconnection, and they are issuing bills for the same.
Considering the facts and evidence on record it is found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the prayers of the petitioner cannot be allowed. But the opposite parties are directed to refund the water charges if any collected during the period of disconnection to the petitioner or to adjust the amount in the future bills if the petitioner is taking re connection as per rules. Hence the petition is disposed of accordingly. Parties will bear their costs.
Dated this the 2nd day of November 2016.
Date of filing: 03.03.2011.
SD/-MEMBER SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.Cash receipt issued by the opposite party dtd.16.04.2010.
A2.Reply letter issued by the opposite party dtd.08.02.2011.
A3.Copy of the bill No.2736 dtd.31.03.2011
A4. Complainant letter issued by the complainant to the collector dtd.31.03.2011.
A5. Letter issued by the complainant to the Minister Sri.N.K.Premachandran dtd.31.01.2011
A6. Reply letter issued by the Pvt.Secretary to the complainant
A7. Copy of the bill No.2806 issued by the opposite party to the complainant dtd.31.05.2011
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
B1.Letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant dtd.08.02.2011.
B2. Photocopy of the complainant given by the complainant to the help desk dtd.01.01.2011
B3. Notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dtd.14.10.2010.
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Jiffriya (Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
RW1. Rajani.K.T. Asst.Engineer, Distribution No.1, West Hill, Calicut-5.
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
