Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                    The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

                    2. The case of the complainant is as follows:  The complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide no. AKD.291. According to him though he paid the water charge to opposite parties up to 2013 only 2 or 3 times opposite party supplied water to him.  It is contented that the complainant is a right to get water from the opposite parties and he is not liable to pay any water charge in the absence of water supply.  Hence the complaint, for awarding compensation etc.to the complaint.  This forum entertained the complaint and issued notices to opposite parties for their appearance.  All the opposite parties entered appearance and filed their objection. The content of the objection is as follows.  It is admitted that the complainant is a subscriber of the opposite parties vide consumer No. AKD.291 dated 07/02/2011.  According to them at the time of taking water connection by the complainant there are few consumers in Anickadu Panchayath so that the availability of the water was so high.  It is further contented that due to the expansion of water connection and the low quality pipe line the opposite parties were not in a position to supply water to the consumers frequently.  According to the opposite parties the complainant only remitted a water charge of Rs.1400/- to opposite parties up to 04/05/2013.  It is further stated that it is the option of the complainant to continue or discontinue water connection with opposite parties.  The opposite party contented that at present the complainant has no chance of getting water supply from the existing scheme of the opposite parties. Therefore opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost to them.

                    3. We peruse the complaint, objection [version] and records before us and framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in services as alleged.
2.  Regarding relief and cost.

         4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant is examined as PW1 and marked EXT A1, A2 and EXT C1.  EXT A1 is the bill for Rs. 1080/- dated: 01/10/2016.  EXT A2 is the copy of the meter reading card. EXT C1 is the commissioner report. The opposite parties learned Counsel Cross examined the complainant PW1 and we heard both sides.

         5. Point No. 1& 2:- For the sake of convenience we would like to consider point No.1 & 2 together.  When we peruse the chief examination of the complainant PW1 we can see that he is a subscriber of opposite parties and he was not getting water supply from opposite parties for the last 5 to 6 years.  Even then PW1 was remitted the water bill to opposite party for an amount of Rs.1400/-.  It is deposed that EXT A1 is a bill issued by 1^st opposite party against the complaint for an amount of Rs.1080/-  which is proved through Ext. A1 (date 1^st October 2016).  Ext. A2 is a copy of the meter reading card issued by opposite parties infavour of  the complainant it shows that the meter reading on 16/07/2002 was 27.3 and on 07/11/2015 it was 363.  It is deposed that the bill amount shown is Ext. A1 ie, 1080/- was also remitted by the complainant.  In chief examination he deposed ഈ ബിൽ തുകയും ഞാൻ അടച്ചതാണ് ഇതിലും പരാതിയില്ല മേലാൽ വെള്ളം ലഭിക്കാതെ ബിൽ വരരുത് എന്നാണ് എനിക്ക് അപേക്ഷയുള്ളത്.  വെള്ളം കൃത്യമായി കൊടുക്കുന്നതിന് നിർദേശിക്കണമെന്ന് എനിക്ക് അപേക്ഷയുണ്ട്.  In cross he deposed as follows നിലവിലുള്ള K.W.A യുടെ വാട്ടർ ലഭ്യത അനുസരിച്ച് നിങ്ങളുടെ വീട്ടുഭാഗത്ത് വെള്ളം supply ചെയ്യാൻ കഴിയില്ലല്ലോ (A) ശരിയല്ല. (Q) ആനിക്കാട്- മല്ലപ്പള്ളി പഞ്ചായത്തുകൾക്കുള്ള പുതിയ ജലവിതരണ പദ്ധതി പൂർത്തീകരീക്കുമ്പോൾ മാത്രമേ നിങ്ങളുടെ മേഖലയിൽ ജല വിതരണം നടത്താൻ കഴിയുകയുള്ളൂ എന്ന് പറയുന്നു. (A) ശരിയല്ല (Q) നിങ്ങൾ K.W.A യുടെ connection surrender ചെയ്താൽ കേസിന് ആസ്പദമായ ബിൽ തുക പൂർണ്ണമായും K.W.A ഇളവു ചെയ്യുമെന്നു പറയുന്നു (A) ഈ സൌജന്യം എനിക്ക് ആവശ്യമില്ല. എനിക്ക് കൃത്യമായി വെള്ളം ലഭിക്കണമെന്നാണ് അപേക്ഷ. When we examine the testimony of PW1 we can infer that the intension of the complaint is only for getting a regular water supply from opposite parties.  When the defense counsel suggested certain alternatives and excuses with regard to the regular water supply, the complainant did not admit the suggestion.  We do not think that the excuse of non-supply of water to the complainant is sustainable?  It is to see that when the opposite party granted water connection to the complainant the opposite party agreed to supply water to the consumer frequently and the consumer/complainant is agreed to pay the water charges.  It is also noted that at the time of cross examination the opposite party was ready and willing to set off the bill amount if the complainant surrender the water connection.  The answer of the complainant was ‘ഈ സൌജന്യം എനിക്ക് ആവശ്യമില്ല എനിക്ക് കൃത്യമായി വെള്ളം ലഭിക്കണമെന്നാണ് അപേക്ഷ.  On the basis of the evidence discussed above it can be attributed that the complainant PW1 does not want to reimburse the water bill he already paid but on the other side he wanted to get a regular water supply to his house.  Though the complainant did not plead the deficiency in service of the opposite party in his complaint or in chief examination, considering the nature of evidence and prayer if the complainant we can attributed deficiency in service against the opposite parties.  Therefore we found deficiency in service against the opposite parties and allow this complaint partly.  Therefore the complaint is allowable and point No. 1 & 2 found accordingly.

         6. In the result we pass the following orders:-

 1. The opposite parties are here by directed to ensure water      supply to the complainant subject to the availability of water, anyhow not less than 2 days in a week.

2.  A cost of Rs. 1500/- is also allowed to the complainant from           opposite parties with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order own wards.  

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th  day of October, 2017.

                                                                               (Sd/-)

            P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                

                                                                                      (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)           :    (Sd/-)      

 (

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  George Mathew

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Bill amount of Rs.1080/- dated: 01/10/2016. 

A2 :  Copy of the meter reading card.

C1 :  Commissioner report.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:Nil

                                                                                       (By Order)

Copy to:-  (1) George Mathew, Parolickal,Mallappally West,

                     Anickadu.P.O,

        (2) Assistant Engineer, PH Sub Division,

      Kerala Water Authority,Mallappally Section,

                            Mallappally.P.O.

              (3) Managing Director,Kerala Water Authority,

                      Thiruvanathapuram.

                  (4) The Stock File.