IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 28th day of January 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M. Anto, Member
CC No. 80/2021 (Filed on 09/04/2021)
Complainants :1. P.K.Chandy,
Planthanathu Karottu House
Poovanthuruthu P.O,
Panachikadu Village
Kottayam Taluk,
Kottayam District-686012
2. V.N.Maniyappan,
Valiyaveettil House
Poovanthuruthu P.O,
Panachikadu Village
Kottayam Taluk,
Kottayam District-686012.
3. P.K.Jagathamma,
Nelliparambil House,
Poovanthuruthu P.O,
Panachikadu Village
Kottayam Taluk,
Kottayam District-686012.
(By Adv.Arya P Mohan)
Vs
Opposite party : Kerala Water Authority,
P.H.Sub Division
Collectorate P.O, Kottayam-02
reptd by its Executive Engineer.
(Adv.K.M.George)
O R D E R
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
The complainant filed this complaint u/s.35 of the C.P. Act 2019.
The case of the complainant is as follows. The complainants are consumers of the opposite party by availing domestic connection of the opposite party. It is contented that the opposite party failed to give sufficient water supply to the complainants during summer season as agreed. Though the complainant approached the opposite party several times they did not care to redress the grievances of the complainant. All the water connections are provided under the Kolladu Rural Water scheme. The water to be supplied to the complainants is stored in the water tank at Kolladu. But in the course of supply when the water reaches the Kaduvakulam point the opposite party bifurcates the water in three areas and to the east of Kaduvakkulam using a valve placed at the Kaduvakkulam point. It is averred in the complaint that the present president of Panachikkadu Grama Panchayath who is elected from ward no. 22 influenced MLA and has removed the valve which is placed for regulating the supply of water and has provisioned easy and regular supply of water to ward no. 22. According to the complainant it is the bounden duty of a service provider to provide water to the complainant for their domestic connection either regularly or in a restricted way as that of other consumers. The act of the opposite party of not providing the water to its consumers amounts to deficiency in service. Due to the non supply of water complainants have to depend other source including hiring of water by spending large amounts. The opposite parties committed deficiency in service against the complainants there by the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainants. Hence, the case for granting the compensation of Rs.50,000/-, regular water supply etc. from the opposite parties.
Upon notice opposite party appeared before the commission and filed version as follows:
The allegation that the opposite party after collecting the charges deliberately not providing the water to the complainants is not true. After receiving the complaint Assistant Engineer of Kottayam inspected the residential area of Poovanthuruthu and reported that the residence of the consumers are situated at the last part of a distribution line. During the draught season the consumption of water is comparatively higher than the rainy season. The allegation that there are some political interference and it influenced the opposite party is not correct. There is no discrimination in the supply of water and there is no scarcity of water as alleged and there is no situation of hiring of water for domestic use by the complainants. After receiving the complaint some pipe line leakages due to site condition were noticed, the pipe line leakages are rectified and there is adequate water supply available. It is submitted in the version that the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
First complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination for and on behalf of the second and third complainant. No documentary evidence from the side of the complainant. No oral evidence is adduced from the side of the opposite party. Documents filed the opposite party is marked as exhibit B1 and B2.
On the basis of the contention of the rival parties we framed the following issues for consideration.
- Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service as alleged?
- Regarding the relief and costs?
Point Nos.1 & 2: For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point No.1 & 2 together. In order to substantiate the contention of the complainant the first complainant who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination as discussed above. When we go through the proof affidavit we can see that the proof affidavit is more or less as per the tune of the complaint. According to the complainants in spite of repeated demands from them with regard to the non-supply of water to their domestic connection the opposite parties failed even to hear them or resolve their complaint. It is the definite case of the complainants that there is no sufficient water supply to their residence due to the removal of the valve which is placed for regulating the supply of water to their residence under the influence of some political interference.
It is admitted by the opposite party that the residence of the consumers are situated at the last part of a distribution line. It is submitted by the opposite party that during the draught season the consumption of water is comparatively higher than the rainy season and there is no discrimination in the supply of water. It is further admitted that after receiving the complaint some pipe line leakages due to site condition were noticed, the pipe line leakages are rectified and there are adequate water supply available. On perusal of exhibit B1 we can see that the opposite party regularly issued the bill for the complainants. When this Commission evaluate the proof affidavit, Ext.B1 and B2 we would like to find that complainants succeeded to prove the deficiency in service of the opposite party. Being the consumers of the opposite party the complainants have a right to get a regular water supply to their residence even as per the agreement between the parties. Therefore we would like to find that the complainants succeeded to prove the deficiency in service against the opposite party. Hence point No.1& 2 are found in favour of the complainants.
In the result we pass the following orders.
The opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) along with a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) to the complainants with 9% interest from the date of receipt of this Order.
The opposite parties are also directed to ensure regular water supply to the domestic water connection of the complainants.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of January,2023.
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1- Copy of bill issued by Kerala Water Authority, Kottayam Sub Division.
B2- Location sketch of Panachikkadu Distribution line from Kollad OHSR to ward 20 & 21.
By order
sd/-
Assistant Registrar
