IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 15th day of March, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 74/2017 (Filed on 16-03-2017)
Petitioners : 1) K. Karthyayaniamma,
W/o. Raghavakaimal (late),
Raghava Mandiram,
Perunthanam, Uzhavoor P.O.
Kottayam – 686 634.
(Adv. Pillai Jayaprakash Raveendran
Adv. M.D. Devassia and
Adv. Prasannakumari V.R.)
Additional petitioners 2) M.R. Chandrasekharan Nair,
(Impleaded as per IA Order 29/20) S/o.Raghavakaimal,
Karthika House,
Kumaranalloor P.O
Kottayam.
3) M.R. Madhusoodanan Nair,
S/o. Raghavakaimal,
Raghava Mandiram,
Perunthanam, Uzhavoor P.O.
Kottayam – 686 634.
4) R. Sreekumar,
S/o. Raghavakaimal,
-do-
5) Padmakumar,
S/o. Raghavakaimal,
-do-
6) Sreeja S. Nair,
D/o. M. R. Sasidharan Nair,
Pariyarath House,
Aangoor, Marangattupalli P.O.
Kottayam.
7) Sreejith S.
S/o. M. R. Sasidharan Nair,
Sreevalsam House,
Nilavilikkunnu,
Kattukulam P.O
Palakkad.
8) Sreevidya,
D/o. M. R. Sasidharan Nair,
Mangalath Puthenpurayil house,
Kattampakk P.O. Kottayam.
(For 2-8 ptrs. Adv.M.D. Devasia)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Luka Ennamplasseril,
President,
Perunthanam Koozhavayal
Jalasechana samithi,
Reg. No. K 543/2001,
Ennamplasseril House,
Perunthanam, Uzhavoor P.O.
Kottayam – 686 634.
(Adv. Siju K. Isssac and Adv. Bobby John K.A.)
2) Mini Satheesan,
Secretary,
Perunthanam Koozhavayal
Jalasechana samithi,
Reg. No. K 543/2001,
Kunnathuvayalil House,
Perunthanam, Uzhavoor P.O.
Kottayam – 686 634.
(Adv. E.J. Binu)
3) Jaimon
Treasurer,
Perunthanam Koozhavayal
Jalasechana samithi,
Reg. No. K 543/2001,
Nedumparayil House,
Perunthanam, Uzhavoor P.O.
Kottayam – 686 634.
(Adv. Mini Shanker and Adv. Vineetha Narayanan)
4) Aji,
Pump Operator,
Perunthanam Koozhavayal
Jalasechana samithi,
Reg. No. K 543/2001,
Veloopparambil House,
Perunthanam, Uzhavoor P.O.
Kottayam – 686 634.
(For Op 1 and 4, Adv. Bobby John and
Adv. R. Ravikumar)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complainant was a consumer of Perunthanam Koozhavayal Jalasechana project with reg. no.K543/2001 and she had donated her property free of cost to the said society for digging a pond. The 1st opposite party is the President of the said Society, 2nd 3rd and 4th opposite parties are the Secretary, Treasurer and the Pump operator respectively. The said Society which started functioning in 2001 approached the complainant requesting to donate the above said property as they were facing a water scarcity. The then office bearers of the Society assured the complainant that they would supply water to the complainant at free of cost as long as they use the said pond, the complainant would be given permanent membership in the Society and if at any point of time the functioning of the Society stops or the availability of water in the pond stops the property would be returned to the complainant or her legal heirs without any conditions. As per the said mutually agreed conditions between the complainant and the opposite parties, the complainant gave the possession of the property in 2008. Thereafter, the Society after digging the pond had been continuously using the water from the pond to distribute to its members and the complainant was approved as a free consumer. Even in 2001 itself, there was another water connection in the name of the complainant’s son and Rs.15,000 per litter and Rs.100/- per each additional 1,000 litters has been paid regularly . In 2008, the said Society widened the pond without the permission of the complainant and thus trespassed to the 2.5 cent property of the complainant.
At the time of the property transactions, there was an agreement between the complainant and the Society that the complainant would be treated as their consumer without payment. But the new office bearers discontinued the free water connection and the free supply of water to the complainant. Due to the continuous request of the complainant, the Society in 2016 October gave a free water connection to the complainant 2 feet apart from the pipeline of her son’s connection and the complainant’s son had to pay Rs.8,000/- towards the expense of the same. Thereafter, in the month of November, the 4th opposite party demanded payment for one month for the free connection also. He informed her that it was the decision of the executing committee of the Society and water cannot be supplied free of cost. This was against the agreement made at the time of the digging of the pond.
In 2012, the opposite party Society purchased a property of 1 cent for Rs.2,00,000/- and from 2016 they started pumping water from the pond made in the said property and asked the complainant to give her free water connection to someone else for Rs.75,000/-. From January 2017, the water supply was only on alternate days and only for 2 hours in the morning. The reason said was scarcity of water. Even in such scarcity, the Society was ready to give for new connection @ 75,000/- each. The complainant being a cancer patient was using the water for cleaning her dresses and for this reason on 06-02-2017, the 4th opposite party fitted a new valve on the pipeline to the complainant’s house as per the direction of the opposite parties 1 to 3 and locked the pipeline. Thereafter, according to the Order of the District Collector, though they removed the lock again on 24-02-17, they replaced the box with another metal box and locked. Instead of the assured free water connection, the complainant had to pay water charges for both the connections. So the complaint is filed for getting free water supply to the complainant and for compensation.
Upon notice from this Commission, opposite parties appeared and filed version.
The opposite party 1 and 4 filed joint version in which they contended that the averment that the Society assured to give free water supply and permanent membership to the complainant and if the water availability stops the property would be given back is false. There was no such agreement made by the Society. Though the complainant donated the property, the Society had never promised to give free water supply. There was 2 water connections to the complainant’s house and they had been paying for the water usage in both connections. The complainant was entitled to take 15,000 litter water from each connection for Rs.100/-. She was not charged Rs.100/- for the additional 1,000 litter. The opposite parties have never encroached upon the property of the complainant. The complainant herself had informed that she needed only one connection and returned the other connection to the Society. Again on 02-02-15, she gave a request to the President of the Society for granting a free connection. As the previous water connection was disconnected by the complainant herself, the Society suggested to reinstall the same at her own cost. Moreover, demanded the complainant to pay Rs.3,000/- towards the water charge due and Rs.3,000/- towards the members contribution. On 31-11-2016 M.R. Sasidharan Nair, son of the complainant accepting the said decision of the general body and paid the amount. Thereafter the connection of the complainant was reinstated. Free connection does not mean free water supply and the opposite parties have not received Rs.8,000/- towards labour charge, Only because of the severe scarcity of water, the Society was forced to buy one cent property in 2012. All other allegations are false. From the month of January, the scarcity of water became worse and the Society had to control water supply. An arrangement was made to supply water to one locality by closing the valve to other directions. There is no special valve to the complainant’s connection but it was for 8 consumers. Son of the complainant started to open the valve and hence the Society was forced to close the valve with a metal box. No order from District Collector has been received by the Society as alleged. The complainant has 2 wells in her house and in addition to that she has a connection with Japan Water Scheme. The complainant and her sons are the only residence of the house. All the issues started only after the return of the complainant’s son from America. The demand for free water supply is for the agriculture and gardening purpose. The Society is facing water crisis and not in a position to give water free of cost. The opposite party 2 is not the Secretary and opposite party 3 is not the Treasurer of the Society and they are unnecessary parties to the complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the version filed by the 2nd opposite party it is admitted that the complainant had donated her property to the society for water supply and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are the office bearers of the Society and the 4th opposite party is only a salaried employee. All the averments regarding the free water connection given to the complainant in 2013 are admitted. The Society did not encroach upon any other property of the complainant but only increased the depth of the pond already constructed. After installing the water connection free of cost when the complainant’s younger son paid a lump sum amount for his water connection annually, the payment for water usage of complainant was also deducted from that amount. All the problems started only after locking the valve of pipe line in 2017 February. The Society never charge Rs.75,000/- for water connections. The Society purchased the property of 1 cent for Rs.2,00,000/- and from there also started pumping water from 2016. In 2017., the new office bearers decided to collect payment from the complainant for the water supply as free connection did not meant free water supply. The Society had never decided to disconnect the 2 water connections to the complainant’s house. The complainant was using the free connection for cleaning her dresses, most often by opening the locked valve. The water usage in the 2 connections are found very low. The complainant got an order from the District Collector directing the Society to remove the lock of the valve and restore the complainant’s water connection. But again due to some alleged malpractices in the lock the valve was again locked and after a mediation on 26-02-2017, it was decided again to remove the lock. The 2nd opposite party admits that a discussion is on stage considering to give free water to the complainant and if the executives decides to do so the 2nd opposite party is willing to act accordingly. The Rs.8,000/- received by the Society at the time of installation of water connection was including the Members contribution of Rs.3,000/-. The balance amount is the amount of meter, pipe and labour charge. The total water charge collected for the free water connection is only Rs.300/-.
The 3rd opposite party has defended the complaint by stating that he was a temporary member in the Executive Committee of the Society and as per the decision of the then Committee, the complainant was provided with drinking water. The 3rd opposite party has no connection with the Society directly or indirectly and so he is not a necessary party to the complaint.
The complainant executed a power of attorney in favour of her son M.R. Madhusoodanan Nair to conduct the case and he is referred as the complainant hereafter.
The complainant has filed Exhibit A1 to A20 and deposed as PW1.
The opposite parties filed Exhibit B1 and B2 and examined DW1. This is the evidence part of the case.
On a detailed examination of the pleadings and evidence, we are of the opinion of framing the following points:
1.Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant?
Point no 1 and 2
The complainant was a member of the opposite parties’ society. The complainant’s mother donated a water land of one cent to the opposite parties for digging a pond for the water supply to its consumers in 2008.In return the opposite parties agreed to give free water connection to the life time of the original complainant. In 2013, the complainant’s mother was given a water connection. Thereafter as the executive committee members changed from time to time, they did not give free water connection until October, 2016. In 2016 October, the opposite parties gave a water connection by installing a T pipe to the already existing connection in the name of the complainant’s son by charging Rs.8000/- towards the cost of the connection. Thereafter the opposite parties tried to interrupt the enjoyment of water supply several times by raising one or other reason.
On the other hand, the opposite parties contended that the complainant and her son were unnecessarily dragging the society into litigation and there was no such agreement between them to provide free water connection to the complainant.
When we gave a thoughtful evaluation of the allegations of the complainant and the contentions of the opposite parties, we understand that there are several contradictory statements on the part of the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party has contended in the version that though the opposite party society had decided to give free water connection to the complainant, it did not mean that free water supply for the life time of the complainant and her legal heirs. Though she alleges that the complainant had done several mischief by destroying the said pond, she did not produce any documents in support to that. The first opposite party is the president of the opposite party society at the time of the initiation of the case.
The 2nd opposite party, who is the secretary of the jalasechanasamithi has stated in her version that the complainant has donated the property and the society gave her a free connection and free water supply in 2013. Thereafter when the complainant requested to give the connection from the main pipe, the society has took the water meter with an assurance of fresh connection from the main pipe. But later they asked the complainant to give a written surrender of the free connection.
The 2nd opposite party has again admitted that the usual practice in similar projects is to give free water connection and free water supply to the consumers who donate their property free of cost to the society. Only due to some personal interest of the previous secretary, the problems regarding this connection were started. The 3rd opposite party also has admitted that there was a decision to give free water connection and water supply to the complainant and the society was complying it without any fault.
From Exhibit B2 also it is inferred that the opposite parties had no objection in giving free water connection to the complainant, but the objection was only regarding the payment of usage of water.
Dw1, who is the present president of the society has deposed in contradiction to the contentions of the other opposite parties.
The complainant though alleges that both the parties mutually agreed regarding the free water connection, the complainant has failed to produce any document in support of this. Again the complainant though alleges that there was an order from the District collector, no such order has been produced.
From Exhibit A5 series and A9, the inference is that the complainant was regularly paying the water charge for her connection. Though the opposite parties had given a free connection to the complainant, it was disconnected, reconnected at the cost of the complainant and again disconnected. As per Exhibit A 15, which is a compromise document between the opposite parties and the complainant herein it is agreed that the lock of the box fitted in the water connection shall be removed and kept under observation.
In the light of above discussion, we find that the complainant deserves a water connection being a consumer of the opposite parties and the complaint is allowed in part vide the following order:
- The opposite parties are directed to reinstate the free water connection to the complainant and give uninterrupted water supply by receiving water usage charges and as per the rules and regulations of the society.
- The complainant is also directed not to cause any mischief damaging the water meter and its connected pipes.
The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of Order.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 15th day of March, 2022
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1 – M.R. Madhusoodanan Nair
Witness from the side of opposite party
Dw1 – Leelamma D.R.
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Power of attorney (Subject to objection)
A2 – Tax receipt dtd.11-04-17
A3 – photograph of pipe
A4 –Copy of complaint given by the complainant dtd.21-06-14 to 1st opposite
party
A5 – Bill dtd.31-07-14 issued by opposite party
A5(a)- Bill dtd.30-01-15 issued by opposite party
A6 – Copy of complaint dtd.02-02-15 by complainant to 1st opposite party
A7 – Copy of complaint dtd.10-10-16 by complainant to 1st opposite party
A8 – Retail invoice dtd.15-10-16 by JOS Electricals and Saniwares
A9 – Water Meter Reading card issued by opposite party
A10 – Photographs (2 nos.)
A11 – Photographs (2 nos)
A12 – Copy of complaint given by the complainant to the District Collector,
Kottaym (Subject to objection)
A13 – Photographs (2 nos.)
A14 – Copy of complaint dtd.25-02-2017 given by complainant to the District
Collector, Kottayam
A15 – Compromise report dtd.18-03-17
A16 – Photographs (2 nos.)
A17 – Notice dtd.28-01-17
A17(a) Notice dtd.09-03-17
A18- Tax invoice dtd.22-12-20 by Jos Electricals & Saniwares
A19 series – Photographs (3 nos.) (Subject to proof)
A20 series – Photographs (3 nos.) (Subject to proof)
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of passbook account no.12722 issued by Urban Co-operative Bank, Uzhavoor Branch
B2 – Copy of minutes held on 09-02-20
By Order
Assistant Registrar
