Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/257

executive engineer, kerala water authority - Complainant(s)

Versus

jose joseph - Opp.Party(s)

issac samuel

31 Aug 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 257/15

JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2016

(Against the order in CC No.103/14 on the file of CDRF, Idukki, Dated: 30/08/14)

PRESENT

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                       : MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS

 

1. The Executive Engineer, KWA,

          Thodupuzha, Idukki.

 

2. The Managing Director,

          Kerala Water Authority,

          Jalabhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.

 

          (By Adv: Sri. Issac Samuel)

 

                                                                             Vs.

 

RESPONDENTS

 

1. Jose Joseph,

          Consumer No.289 VLMTM,

          Puthupalliyil House, Arakkulam Post,

          Thodupuzha.

 

2. Valsa Vimal,

          Consumer No.313 AKLM,

          Karinthuruthel House, Arakkulam Post,

          Idukki.

 

3. Vilasini,

          Consumer No.290 VLMTM,

          Kunnel House, Arakkulam Post,

          Idukki.

 

4. Krishnankutty,

          Consumer No.259 VLMTM,

          Mulackappathiyil House, Arakkulam Post,

          Idukki.

 

JUDGMENT

 

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                   : MEMBER

          This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties against the order in CC No.103/14 on the file of CDRF, Idukki dated 30/08/2014 directing the opposite parties to cancel the demand notice and to provide drinking water connection to the complainants within three months along with a cost of Rs.1,000/-

          2.      The case of the complainant is as follows:  Complainants are consumers of opposite parties for their residential water connection from 2004.  For last four years they are not getting water from the opposite party’s connection.  Informed the opposite party and gave a representation to the Hon’ble minister concerned and assured a redressal soon.  Meanwhile a notice was issued by the opposite party for paying the water charges. Due to the non-availability of water, they have to find water from other measures using motor vehicle from distant places.  Hence this petition for obtaining drinking water from the connection of opposite party and also for cancelling the demand notice issued and for compensation of Rs.48,000/-.

          3.      According to the version filed by opposite parties the pipe line was not laid by them but it was laid by Janakeeyasoothranam scheme with participation of beneficiaries through agricultural land of private parties.  For last 3 – 4 years distribution of water was not proper due to leakage and blockage in pipe lines.  As it was laid in private land repairing of leak or block is not possible.  Alternative remedy is laying new pipe line.  For which an estimate for Rs.10.65 lakhs is prepared and expecting sanction.  Now it is decided at higher level to take over the water supply in the panchayath by “Jalanidhi” and steps are being taken.  The petitioners could have availed temporarily disconnection as they are not getting water.  According to them the remedy that can be granted is the cancellation of demand for dues.  So prayed for a dismissal as there is no deficiency.  The Forum below considered the issue of deficiency in service and relief and cost.  The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P9 were marked on the side of complainant.  Ext.R1 marked on the side of opposite parties and no oral evidence.  The consumer card issued to one Purushothaman is marked as Ext.P2 and consumer meter card as Ext.P3.  Consumer card issued to 3^rd complainant and receipts issued is marked as Ext.P4 (series).  Provisional invoice card and meter reading card issued to 4^th complainant is marked as Ext.P6 (series).  Meter reading card issued to 5^th complainant is marked as Ext.P1.  The letters issued by the accounts officer and letter issued by additional chief secretary is marked as Ext.P8 (series).  Ext.P9 is copy of new paper cutting explaining the scarcity of water in that area.  Complainants gave several complaints of not getting water.  Ext.P9 news paper cutting also proves the non-availability of water for last 3 – 4 years.  The demand notice was also admitted and suggested temporary disconnection by opposite parties.

          4.      According to the lower forum it is absolutely clear that the complainants are not getting water for last 3 – 4 years. The lower forum feels that it is not proper to issue bill, as they are not providing water.  Issuing bills without giving water is a clear deficiency and has to be cancelled from 2008 onwards.  The opposite parties should provide drinking water to the complainants within three months, commissioning the project under ‘Jalanidhi’.  With such an observation the forum ordered cancellation of the bill issued, along with a cost of Rs.1,000/-

          5.      Aggrieved by the above order the opposite parties preferred this appeal on various grounds.   We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants.  We have also gone through the lower court records.  The grounds urged in the appeal memorandum were pressed into service.  However none of the grounds are sufficient to rescue the case of the opposite party / appellant.  The appellant have no case that the complainant consumers are getting drinking water through the pipe line provided.  However they have no hesitation to raise the bill and claim / demand the charges.  Raising bill mechanically without providing water have no any excuse.  The contention that the pipes laid through agricultural field under some scheme of other agencies are not amenable and is not acceptable.  The pipe lines are laid by some agency and it is not capable to supply water to unfortunate consumers is not a license to raise bills and claim charges for water not supplied.  The infrastructure and free flow of water is an obligation of the service provider.   Without maintaining the lines and without ensuring uninterrupted water supply, how water authority gets right to claim amount, is not able to conceived by us.  The lower forum considered all these facts. Let the appellant respect the order and ensure water supply to the respondent.  No order to deter such obligations of water authority can be passed by fora, under the given circumstances.  We hesitate to interfere in the order of the lower forum, in the circumstances, as it does not have any legal infirmities perse.  Hence we upheld the order of the lower forum and dismiss the appeal.

          In the result, appeal is dismissed and the order of the lower forum in CC No.103/2014 dated 30/08/2014 is upheld and confirmed.  The appellant shall comply the order.

          There is no cost of this proceedings in the circumstances.

 

V.V. JOSE          : MEMBER

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

nb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACADU,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO. 257/15

JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2016

 

 

 

nb