IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,

Dated this the 26^th day of August, 2014.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member-I)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member-II)

C.C.No.51/2014 (Filed on 02.05.2014)

Between:

Sunil Kumar,

Perumtholil,

Vattathara,

Malayalapuzha Eram. P.O.,

Pathanamthitta.

(By Adv. K.N. Sujith)                                                ….    Complainant

And:

1. The Managing Director,

Kerala Water Authority,

Thiruvananthapuram.

1. Exe. Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

Pathanamthitta.P.O.

1. Asst. Exe. Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

Konni.P.O.,

Pathanamthitta.

(By Adv. George. K. Mathew

for O.P’s.1, 2 & 3)

1. Secretary,

Malayalapuzha Grama Panchayat,

Malayalapuzha Thazham.P.O.,

Pathanamthitta.                                       …..Opposite parties

O R D E R

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

                The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                2. The complainant’s case is that he is a consumer of Kerala Water Authority and he is residing at the 4^th opposite party’s panchayat.  The 1^st opposite party assured the complainant that if the water charge for one year is remitted, the complainant will get uninterrupted water supply and it will be complied by the 3^rd opposite party.  Believing the same, the complainant had paid Rs.1,330/- being the water charges upto 31.12.2014.  However, opposite party has not provided water as against their assurance.  The complainant is getting water only once in a month.  So the complainant is compelled to purchase water and on this account the complainant had spent Rs.6,000/-.  If the opposite parties continues their present attitude in not providing water, complainant’s losses and sufferings will be increased.  The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  Hence this complaint for the realization of Rs.6,000/- and an order directing the opposite parties to provide water supply uninterruptedly to the complainant and for allowing the cost of this proceedings. 

                3. 3^rd opposite party filed a common version for opposite parties 1 to 3 with the following main contentions:  The allegation of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party had made an assurance for providing water supply uninterruptedly and on the basis of the said assurance, opposite parties collected the water charges is false.  Malayalapuzha Panchayat where the complainant is residing is an area where, there is scarcity of water and hence opposite parties are providing water in that area on rotation basis. Meter reading of the complainant from 29.11.2008 to 21.05.2014 clearly shows that the complainant is getting sufficient water and hence the complainant’s allegation in this regard is also false.  All consumers are entitled to remit the water charges in advance and hence the complainant’s remittance is on the basis of it.  Malayalapuzha Area is an elevated place and there are about 1600 consumers in the Malayalapuzha water supply scheme, and the said scheme was started 25 years ago.  So it is very difficult to provide water always in all places.  So a meeting of the panchayat authorities including panchayat members and the officers of the opposite parties discussed the problems and decided to provide water once in a week in all area and the opposite parties are properly complying the said decision and hence the complainant’s allegation that he is getting water only once in a month is also false.  Now by operating the valves properly, opposite parties are providing water to all consumers equally.  Therefore, opposite parties has not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  With the above contentions, opposite parties 1 to 3 prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

                4. 4^th opposite party is exparte.

                5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                6. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral depositions of PW1, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A5.  After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.

                7. The Point:- The allegation of the complainant is that on the basis of the assurance given by the 1^st opposite party for providing water uninterruptedly he had remitted his water charges for the year ending 31^st December, 2014 in advance in spite of the assurance and the payment, opposite parties failed to provide water to the complainant and the complainant is getting water only once in a month.  So the complainant is compelled to purchase water from outside by spending Rs.600/- per day and he had already spent Rs.6,000/- on this account.  If the present attitude of the opposite party will continue the loss and sufferings of the complainant will be increased.  The losses and sufferings of the complainant is due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties and they are liable to the complainant for the same.  Therefore, the complainant prays for allowing this complaint.

                8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed a proof affidavit and an additional proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 5 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5.  Ext.A1 is the receipt No.AU 075000 dated 18.02.2014 issued by the 3^rd opposite party in the name of the complainant for the receipt of Rs.1,330/- being the water charges of the complainant from January 2013 to December 2014.  Ext.A2 is the copy of the application dated 28.06.2014 of the complainant under right to information act before the 4^th opposite party.  Ext.A3 is the acknowledgment issued by the opposite party in respect of Ext.A2 application.  Ext.A4 is the answers of the 4^th opposite party in respect of Ext.A2 application.  Ext.A5 is the certified copy of the attendance and the minutes of the meeting held on 20.12.2013 at the office of the 4^th opposite party.

                9. On the other hand, the contention of opposite parties 1 to 3 is that the complainant’s allegation that the 1^st opposite party had made an assurance to provide water uninterruptedly and the 1^st opposite party’s assurance will be complied properly by the 3^rd opposite party and the complainant’s payment of water charges is on the basis of the said assurance is false.  They never made any such assurance and the payment of water charges made by the complainant is none other than his statutory obligation.  The complainant is residing within the Malayalapuzha Water Supply Scheme which is an old scheme having more than 1600 customers and the said place is a highly elevated place.  For the above said reasons and due to the scarcity of water, opposite parties cannot provide water always to all customers.  Considering the above situations and on the basis of the complaints of the customers, a meeting was held at Malayalapuzha Panchayat office in the presence of panchayat President, Members and the officials of the panchayat and the opposite parties wherein it was decided to provide water to all customers at least once in a week by operating the valves properly and now water is giving accordingly without any failure.  The decision of the said committee meeting is binding to all customers including the complainant and the opposite parties, and the opposite parties are strictly following the decision of the committee.  For the aforesaid circumstances and situations, opposite parties cannot go beyond the decision of the committee and they are not able to provide water uninterruptedly to the complainant as demanded by him.  So they argued that they have not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and they prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 

                10. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, 3^rd opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and on the basis of it, he was examined as DW1.

                11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the only dispute between the parties with regard to the supply of water.  According to the complainant, opposite parties are not providing water uninterruptedly as against the assurance of the 1^st opposite party and he had paid the water charges in advance on the basis o the said assurance.  But the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the 1^st opposite party had made such an assurance to the complainant or his payment was on the basis of the said assurance.  It is also difficult to believe the complainant’s contention as the 1^st opposite party being the Managing Director of the opposite parties, it is quite impossible for him to make such an assurance to the complainant.  Further, the payment made by the complainant is a fact, but he had paid only the minimum charges and the said payment can be treated only as a normal procedure and hence it cannot be considered as a payment for getting uninterrupted water supply.  Moreover, the complainant has also adduced no evidence for substantiating his contention in this respect.  So we find that the said contentions of the complainant is not sustainable.

                12. At the same time, it is the grievance of the complainant that he is not getting water uninterruptedly.  From the contentions of the opposite parties, which also is not objected by the complainant, it is clear that opposite parties are not able to provide water uninterruptedly to the complainant or other consumers of the said scheme.  So we cannot find any fault with the opposite parties for the supply of water uninterruptedly.

                13. However, the complainant as well as other consumers in the said scheme is entitled to get water and hence opposite parties are bound to provide water as far as possible for which they have to comply the decisions taken in the meeting dated 20.12.2013 at Malayalapuzha Panchayat, which is evident from Ext.A5.  Therefore, and in the circumstances of this complaint, this complaint can be disposed with the following directions:

1. Opposite parties are directed to comply the decisions taken and recorded in Ext.A5 strictly without any failure by providing water to the complainant as well as other consumers at least once in a week.
2. 3^rd opposite party is directed to have a personal supervision for the implementation of Ext.A5 decision and ensure that all the consumers including the complainant is getting water at least once in a week.
3. In the nature and circumstances of this case, no orders for cost and compensation.

        Declared in the Open Forum on this the 26^th day of August, 2014.

                                                                                 (Sd/-)

                                                                        Jacob Stephen,     

                                                                                    (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member - I)             :   (Sd/-)

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

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Sunil Kumar. S

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1    :  Receipt No.AU 075000 dated 18.02.2014for Rs.1,330/-  

           issued by the 3^rd opposite party in the name of the  

           complainant. 

A2    :  Copy of the application dated 28.06.2014 of the complainant 

           under the right to information act.

A3    :  Acknowledgment issued by the opposite party in Ext.A2  

           application. 

A4    :  Answers of the 4^th opposite party in Ext.A2 application. 

A5    :  Certified copy of the attendance and the minutes of the  

           meeting held on 20.12.2013.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  Harikumar. J

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.             

                                                                              (By Order)

                                                                                     (Sd/-)

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Copy to:- (1) Sunil Kumar, Perumtholil, Vattathara,

                   Malayalapuzha Eram. P.O., Pathanamthitta.

1. The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority,

           Thiruvananthapuram.

1. Exe. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority,

           Pathanamthitta.P.O.

1. Asst. Exe. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority,

           Konni.P.O., Pathanamthitta.

       (5) The Stock File.