KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 483/2006

JUDGMENT DATED:  07-11-2009

PRESENT:

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN             :  MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR                    : MEMBER

APPELLANTS

1.          Assistant Executive Engineer,

          Water Works Sub Division,

          Kerala Water Authority,

          Thrissur.

2.          Managing Director,

          Kerala Water Authority,

          Jala Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.

                        (Rep. by Adv. Sri. V.S. Hareendranath)

                                    Vs

RESPONDENT

K.S. Reghunath,

Kazhunkil House, Asok Nagar,

Ayyanthole, Thrissur District.

          (Rep. by Adv. Smt. N. Sunanda)

JUDGMENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR :  MEMBER

        The opposite parties in OP 328/05 of CDRF, Thrissur are under directions to see that water reaches the petitioner’s house in full time and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner within one month from the date of order.  It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below.

          2.          The complainant’s case, in brief, is that he is a consumer with Consumer No. A-64 and that he depends solely upon the water supplied by the opposite parties.  It is submitted by him that the water supply is only occasional and insufficient and due to non-availability of water, the complainant and his family are leading a deplorable life and living is made difficult.  A lawyer notice was issued which was also of no use and hence the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to supply water in sufficient quantity, regularly and full time, with further request for compensation and costs. 

3.          The first respondent filed version contending that the complainant was given sufficient water and that his faulty meter was replaced on 13-02-2004 and subsequently on taking meter readings it was found that the complainant was consuming an average of 19000 litres per month and that the complainant’s residence is situated at a higher level and as such the complainant could get water only after the water reaching the lower level of that area.  It was also submitted that as per Clause 17 and 8 of the Regulations, the opposite parties could not guarantee any quantity of water for any specified time and that the Water Authority shall not be responsible for any discontinuation of water supply.  It was also their case that Housing Board was in charge of the supply of water and the charges were collected by the Housing Board itself.  Contending that there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.          Heard both sides.

5.          The learned Counsel for the appellants argued before us that the respondent/complainant was given enough water for his use though it could not be said that there was always water in the pipe line.  It is also argued by him that the geographical condition of the site of the respondent’s house is at a higher level and that when water is supplied, the water reaches the lower area first and as the premises of the complainant is at a higher level, water reaches there only subsequently.  But the complainant had been given enough water for his use as it can be seen that he had been consuming water at an average consumption of 19000 litres per month.  It is also his case that Clause 8 and 17 of the Regulations do not require the appellants/opposite parties to supply any quantity of water for any specified time and that there can also be discontinuation of water supply.  He has also submitted before us that the Forum has gone wrong in directing the opposite parties to give water without any interruption and that the compensation awarded is also without any basis.  It is vehemently argued by him that the order of the Forum below is liable to be set aside.

6.          On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below.  It is his very case that the opposite parties were irregular in giving water to the complainant and he was experiencing much difficulty due to the non-supply of enough water especially in the light of the fact that the complainant and his family were depending solely on the water supplied by the opposite parties.  He has advanced the contention that the directions of the Forum below are just, reasonable and hence to be upheld.  He placed much reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Assistant Engineer, Department of PHED and Another Vs Banwari Lal & Others in II (2003) CPJ 14 (NC) and the decision of the State Commission, West Bengal in Wangdi Tshering Vs Chairman, Kurscong Municipality & Others in 1993(2) CPR 476 where it is held that award of compensation is only just and reasonable in cases where the opposite parties are not giving sufficient water to the consumers.  Arguing for the position that there was gross deficiency on the part of the opposite parities and the directions are only to be upheld, the learned Counsel argued for the dismissal of the appeal with costs.                                          

7.          On hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondent and also on an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances of the case we find that the complainant/respondent has been given a water connection by the opposite parties and that he was not getting water to his satisfaction.  It is also the case of the complainant that the opposite parties are liable to give him water without any obstruction and he is entitled to get water “full time”.  The learned Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties would argue that the complainant was given water though not always or full time as is evidenced from the consumption pattern.  He has also relied on Clause 17 and 8 of the Regulations.  However, we find that the complainant is dissatisfied by the supply of low quantity of water and what he wants is the supply of enough water without any discontinuation.  The Forum has directed to give water full time and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.  Though we find that the complainant is entitled to get water without any discontinuation, there will be occasions when the appellants/opposite parties will be under force majuere conditions.  Moreover, the Regulations are binding on the complainant also.  Regulation 8 and 17 say that the authority does not guarantee any quantity of water for any specified time and the supplier shall not be responsible for any discontinuation of water supply.  But as noted above the consumers of the opposite parties are entitled to get enough water for their daily use and in such a circumstance we feel that a modification of the order is necessary and accordingly the order is modified to the extent that the opposite parties are directed to see that the complainant gets water in his premises to his satisfaction though not full time.  It is also seen that the compensation awarded is on the higher side and we reduce the compensation to Rs. 2,000/-.  The cost of Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the Forum below is sustained.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications indicated above. Thereby the appellants are directed to see that enough water reaches the petitioner’s house for his use and the opposite parties are also liable to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/-.  Appellants are directed to pay the compensation and costs within one month from the date of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment.

In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                                                       S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR :  MEMBER

                                     VALSALA SARANGADHARAN:  MEMBER

Sr.