KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FIRST APPEAL.283/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24..6.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Binu Baby Cherpukallingal Veedu, : APPELLANT Palakuzha, rep. by Power of Attorney Holder Baby, Cherpukallingal Veedu, Palakuzha.P.O., Koothattukulam, Ernakulam. (By Adv.Sabu Francis) Vs. 1. Kanam Mala Vikasana Samithy, : RESPONDENTS Rep.by its President, Elsy Abraham W/o Abraham, Nellichuvattil Veedu, Palakuzha. P.O., Koothattukulam, Ernakulam. 2. Kanam Mala Vikasana Samithy, Rep.by its President Gopi, Varikkanickal, Palakuzha. P.O., Koothattukulam, Ernakulam. JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The appellant is the complainant in CC.91/09 of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint therein was filed seeking for a direction to the 2nd opposite party to resume the water connection. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he is a member of Kanam Mala Vikasana Samithy which was registered for the supply of drinking water and the members of the samithy decided to collect a sum of Rs.150/- each from its beneficiaries to meet the expenses of the inauguration of the project and the complainant received a notice from the 1st opposite party stating that if he did not remit the contribution of Rs.150/- together with the water charges for the month of 2006 December and 2007 January, his connection would be disconnected. Then the complainant asked the 2nd opposite party to furnish the income and expenditure account of the samithy. But he was reluctant to give the same and thereafter on 26.2.07, the water connection of the complainant was disconnected by the opposite party. Hence he filed the complaint before the Forum. 3. The 1st opposite party filed version and contended that the complainant was a defaulter in paying water charges and hence they disconnected the water supply and if entire dues are cleared, the opposite parties are ready to restore the water connection. It is further submitted that the complainant is getting water from the Water Authority and he is also getting potable water from the well attached to his house. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant. He argued for the position that the appellant is entitled to get copy of all the documents of the samithy and the samithy is liable to furnish the same and there is presumption of misappropriation of funds and corruption by the opposite parties so that the opposite parties have not served the above said documents to the complainant. He further submitted that the appellant is ready to remit the amount if the opposite party furnish books of accounts and other documents and as per Ext.A1, the bylaws of samithy the opposite party is liable to keep bills, vouchers books of account etc.. He further submitted that the opposite party have not responded to the application filed under the Right to Information Act. He alleged that the 1st opposite party had done malpractices in the work done by the samithy. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service by disconnecting the drinking water connection and also that the detailed accounts of works done by the samithy had not furnished to the complainant. Thus he canvassed for the position that the appeal is to be allowed, setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and on perusing the records produced by him we find that the appellant is a member of the opposite party Samithy and that it was as per a common decision that the members were offered water connection on payment of amount arrived at by the samithy. It is noted that the water connection had disconnected for the non payment of water charges by the complainant. The complaint was filed to get reconnection of water. Admittedly the complainant is a beneficiary under the scheme. There cannot be any dispute that for availing such a benefit the beneficiary under the scheme should remit beneficiary contribution and water charges then only the beneficiary is entitled to get the benefit under the scheme. In fact the complainant failed to make the aforesaid contributions. In such a situation the service provider cannot be found deficient in rendering service. If that be so the opposite party is justified in not providing the service to the complainant under the said scheme. 6. The complainant has got a case that the opposite parties have been indulging in corrupt practice and misappropriation of fund under the scheme. It is the settled position that the consumer Fora constituted under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act cannot to go into the aspects of misappropriation or corrupt practice. For getting their disputes settled the complainant has to approach competent civil court or any other competent authority prescribed by law. As far as the consumer dispute is concerned the opposite party is perfectly justified in not providing water supply to the complainant because of the failure to remit the prescribed contribution and water charges. It is our considered view that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the samithy of which he is the member. The opposite parties are also ready to reconnect the water supply as soon as the complainant clears the dues to the samithy. The Forum has considered all the aspects of the case and has passed the impugned order. In such circumstances we do not find any cogent reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Forum below. In the result the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER ps | 
