CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2012.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 24/06/2011
CC / 92 / 2011
E.N.Vasudevan,
S/o. Narayanan,
Santhigiri,
Adikandiyoor, Thavalam Post,
Agali, Mannarkkad-678 589 - Complainant
(BY ADV. R.Anand)
Vs
Sri.Joyikuty,
President,
Friends Kudivella Padhathi,
Adiyakandiyoor, Thavalam P.O,
Agali. - Opposite party
(BY K.Lakshminarayanan)
O R D E R
BY SMT. PREETHA. G. NAIR, MEMBER
The complainant purchased the property in Resurvey No:268/3 having an extent of 15 cents inclusive of building on 13/05/2008 from Beevi alias Beevikutty, W/o.Ussain Rawther alias Ussanar. Ussanar was provided with membership No.44 by the opposite party and availed the services for water. After the purchase of the property the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 2,500/- on 31/07/2008 to the society for providing water supply to his house. Thereafter he has deposited Rs.1,740/- on 31/08/2008 and paid Rs.900/- on 01/02/2011 towards the amount due to the society for the period January 2011 to December 2011. The opposite party was providing with water supply to the complainant till 01/01/2011. Thereafter the water supply to the complainant house was interrupted by the opposite party. Then the complainant approached the opposite party to redress his grievance as the only source to get water. All the complaints fell on the deaf ears of the opposite party and the complainant was forced to fetch water @ Rs.5/- per pot for his household purposes and as such the complainant has to spend Rs.100/- each per day to fetch water and to suffer huge financial loss and mental agony. The complainant caused a lawyer notice to the opposite party on 25/05/2011. But the opposite party has not sent reply or no positive action taken. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to
1. Provide water facility and
2. Pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and
3. Pay the cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The opposite party stated that the complainant is not a member in the society. As per the rules of the society the member sold the place/house will terminate the membership and disconnected the water connection. The opposite party admitted that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,500/- as reconnection charges and given the connection. It is also admitted that the complainant has paid Rs.900/- towards the amount due to the society for the period January 2011 to December 2011. Thereafter the pipe connection passing through the premises of the complainant and others broken. The connection was rectified in five times. But the water connection of the complainant was broken again. Then the opposite party got an information from expert that an amount of Rs.1.75 lakhs has to be spent for rectification of water connection. The opposite party is not having the fund to spend Rs.1.75 lakhs to provide water. There was no source to help them for providing the huge amount of Rs.1.75 lakhs. The opposite party denied that the complainant has purchased the water @ Rs.5/- per pot. The Panchayath well situated near the house of the complainant. After receiving the lawyer notice the opposite party has informed all matters directly to the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party ready to retain the balance amount excluding the cost of water used. Hence the opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.
Both parties filed their affidavit. Ext.A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant. The opposite party has not produced documentary evidence. Ext.C1 and C2 marked. Matter heard.
Issues to be considered are
1). Whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act?
2). Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
3). If so what is the relief and cost?
Issue No:1
We perused relevant documents on record. Opposite party stated that the complainant is not a member of the society. So the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Ext.A1 shows that complainant paid Rs.2,500/- to the society, on 31/07/2008 on the account of registration amount. Further complainant stated that he deposited Rs.1,740/- on 31/08/2008 and paid Rs.900/- on 01/2/2011 towards the amount due to the society for the period January 2011 to December 2011. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite party. Also Ext.A3 shows that the complainant purchased the property on 13/08/2008. In C2 the Commissioner produced one letter given by the opposite party, in page No.3 stated that \nbamhen 129, 130 t]PpIfn ]dªncn¡p¶ {]Imcw hnäpt]mb KpWt`màmhn\v AwKXzw kzta[bm CÃmXmhp¶XmWv. AXn\ptijw Øehpw hoSpw hm§p¶hÀ¡v shÅw sImSp¯m AwKXz^okv 25/-- cq]bpw {]Xnamk hcnkwJybmbn 5/- cq]bpw hm§p¶nÃ. Hence the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The 1st issue answered in favour of the complainant.
Issue No:2 & 3
Admittedly the opposite party is providing water supply to members of that locality. Ext.A1 shows that complainant paid Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) to the society on the account of registration amount. Complainant admitted that he had paid Rs.900/-(Rupees Nine hundred only) for the period January 2011 to December 2011 and the opposite party was providing water supply till 01/01/2011. Ext.A2 shows that on 28/02/2011 the complainant paid Rs.900/-(Rupees Nine hundred only). The opposite party stated that the society was governed by the Kerala Government under the World Bank Scheme. Further opposite party admitted that the pipe connection to the complainant was broken and 5 times rectified by them. After, that rectifications, the connection was broken. Then the opposite party enquired the matter to the experts and finalized that changing the pipe connection to 2.5 inch G.I.Pipe for the cost of Rs.1.75 lakhs. There was no fund in the custody of opposite party and the total number of members of the society was below 50. The opposite party has not produced documentary evidence to show that they have no fund for rectification of the connection.
The complainant filed application to call for the documents relating to the niyamavali of the committee and minutes to the opposite party for the period 01/07/2008 to 30/03/2011 and the meeting and the decisions taken for the period 31/07/2008 to 30/03/2011. Application allowed and the opposite party produced only the copy of niyamavali. The documents relating to the minutes and the meeting and decisions are not produced by the opposite party.
In C2 the Commissioner stated that an amount of Rs.61,000/- (Rupees Sixty one thousand only) is the cost of reconnection of 200 M pipeline and the cost of Rs.15,400/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand four hundred only) for repairing works of 700M pipeline. Further the commissioner stated that the pipe connection in 900M was terminated and the complainant and 3 other family have not given water during the period of one year. According to the opposite party there was no fund for repairing the pipe connection. The opposite party has not produced documentary evidence to show their accounts and minutes. Water is essential to all. The opposite party has not produced evidence to show other source of water given to the complainant. The opposite party society constituted and registered for the purpose of giving water. The opposite party has not produced evidence to show that the decisions taken by the general body under the complaints. Complainant is a senior citizen and he availed the services from the opposite party to provide water supply.
In the above discussions, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the result complaint allowed. We direct the opposite party to provide water facility to the complainant within three months from the date of receipt of order or pay an amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) and pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within three months from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of April, 2012.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Cash Receipt (Original) dated 31/07/08 for Rs.2,500/- issued in favour of the complainant by the opposite party
Ext. A2- Cash Receipt (Original) dated 28/02/11 for Rs.900/- issued in favour of the complainant by the opposite party
Ext. A3 - Photocopy of the document No.686/08 of SRO Agali along with sketch.
Ext. A4 - Consumer Pass book issued in favour of Hussain
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Nil.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil.
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil.
Commission Report
C1 – Copy of bylaw of society produced by opposite party.
C2 – Commission Report given by Babu.M.S,Assistant Engineer,KWA, Mannarkkad.
