DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  5^th  day of  June, 2023 

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 23/02/2022  

                         CC/38/2022

Ambika V.,

W/o. Venugopalan,

18/404, Rajiv Nagar, Tholavikavu,

Kodunthirapulli, Palakkad – 678 004                         -                       Complainant

(Party in Person)

                                                                                                Vs

1. Jalanidhi,

Kerala Rural Water Supply & Sanitation Agency,

Panaparambu Vikasana Sangham,

Panaparambu, Kodunthirapulli,

Pirayiri – 678 004, Palakkad.

2. The Secretary,

Pirayiri Grama Panchayath,

Pirayiri, Kodunthirapulli,

Palakkad – 678 004.                                       -                       Opposite parties

(O.P.1 by Adv.V.V.Girish

 O.P.2 by Adv.M.C.Kuriachan)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Complainant pleads that she is a beneficiary of the 1^st O.P. Sanghom which supplies water to the members of the said Sangam. The scheme is run under the supervision of the  2^nd O.P. From 2015 onwards, water supply to her residence is either disrupted or sparse. Even her neighbours are receiving water. Even after repeated complaining, the O.P.s have failed to take any curative steps. Aggrieved thereby, this complaint is filed.  
2. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed detailed version negating the complaint pleadings. They stated that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, that the complaint is barred by limitation, that the 1^st O.P. is a sangam and that the complainant is a part of the sanghom and that the amount paid by the complainant is not a consideration for the service provided, but only her share in the expenses borne by the Sangam for providing water to the beneficiaries.  Water could not be provided to the complainant as the complainant’s residence was at a higher altitude than that of the water tank.
3. Opposite party 2 also filed version repudiating the contention of the complainant in somewhat similar veins.
4. Issues that  arise for consideration are as herein below:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer of the first opposite party?
2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
3. Whether there is any other deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.s 1 & 2?

4.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs sought for?

5.         Any other Reliefs?

5. (i)     Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A4. Complainant was examined as PW1.

   (ii)                OPs 1 & 2 filed proof affidavit, they did not file any documents.   

            Issue No.1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

6.         Of the two opposite parties impleaded herein the first opposite party is the alleged service provider. The first opposite party contended that they are a Sangam and that complainant is a member / beneficiary of the Sangam. Therefore the complainants cannot be equated to be a complainant as contemplated under the Act. 

7.         Complainant has marked Exts.A1 & A2 which are the bills issued by the first opposite party. Both are issued by the Sangam. Contention of the opposite party that they are a Sangam (a beneficiary group) and that the complainant is a beneficiary thereunder stands proved by way of depositions made by the complainant herself as PW1.

8.         It can therefore be reasonably comprehended that the expense defrayed from the complainant as evidenced by Ext.A1 & A2 are not considerations as contemplated by the CP Act. They are only a share that the Members of a Sangam has to pay for  making good or compensating the expenses expended for the welfare of the beneficiary group.

Thus the complainant, in our opinion, is not a consumer of the O.P.s and O.P.s are not    service providers as contemplated under the Act.  

Issue Nos.2 & 5

9.         Apropos the finding  in Issue No.1, we hold that  the complaint is not maintainable. Therefore the complaint is dismissed without any findings with regard to the legality or illegality of the conduct of the opposite parties. The complainant is at liberty to fight out her remedies in any other court having appropriate jurisdiction. 

10.       With this conclusion, complaint is dismissed.

11.       In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                  Pronounced in open court on this the 5^th  day of  June, 2023.    

                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                                Vinay Menon V

                                                      President        

          Sd/-                                                        Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :  

Ext.A1 – Original receipt dated 6/2/2015

Ext.A2 – Original receipt dated 23/5/2018

Ext.A3 – Copy of receipt dated 3/6/2022

Ext.A4 – Original receipt dated 21/1/2022

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:   Nil

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 – Ambika V.(Complainant)

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.