BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 242/2003 <br /> Dated : 15.05.2008<br /> Complainants:<br /> 1.Vasundhara Devi, T.C 17/491, Sree Chakra Sadan, Poojappura P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> 2.T.V. Ramakrishnan Potti, T.C 17/491, Sree Chakra Sadan, Poojappura P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By adv. Sri. Pramod Chandran)<br /> <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> <br /> 1.Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Works Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority, PTP Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> <br /> 3.Sathya Wilson, Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Water Works Section, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 4.Harihara Sarma, Water Works Inspector, Kerala Water Authority, Karamana Division, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By adv. Sri. Dileepkhan)<br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 02.09.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 04.04.2008, the Forum on 15.05.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER <br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed for cancellation of the disconnection notice dated 12.06.2003 issued by opposite parties. Further relief sought for is for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50000/- to the complainant as compensation and for replacement of water meter at opposite parties' expense if it is defective and for costs of Rs. 2000/-. The case of the complainant is that complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties having consumer No. KMA 5447/D. 2nd complainant is the husband of the 1st complainant. Complainants are regularly paying water charges as per Provisional Invoice Card at the rate of Rs. 78/- per month without any default. On 11.06.2003 two subordinates from the 2nd opposite parties' office visited the complainant's residence and told that there is a leakage of water through distribution main pipe and it is to be rectified at complainant's costs and demanded an amount of Rs. 1500/- from him towards the same. Actually the leakage is through the distribution main pipe which is passing through the public road and irrigation canal is existing in between the public road and the complainant's residence. The leakage is to be rectified at water authority's cost and complainant's are not liable for the leakage of water from the pipe passing through the public road. Opposite party threatened that if the complainant fails to comply with the demand their water connection will be disconnected. On 13.06.2003 a notice dated 12.06.2003 was issued by the 3rd opposite party to the 2nd complainant (who is not the consumer of the opposite parties) alleging that he had defaulted payment of water charges and that water meter is defective and to be replaced at the consumer's expense and also that the leakage is to be rectified at his costs. It has also been warned that water supply will be disconnected without any further notice in case he fails to do so. The defaulted period is not mentioned in the notice. No arrear bill has been issued by the opposite party so far. The act of the opposite party is illegal, improper and harassing. It is the duty of the opposite party to check whether water meter is working or not and if the meter is faulty it is to be replaced. No notice was issued to replace the meter. From notice it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. After filing this complaint the opposite parties have disconnected the water supply to the complainant's residence on 17.06.2003 and have been put to much difficulties for two days. It is obvious that the notice dated 12.06.2003 was prepared and served in a hurry burry with the sole intention of vengeance for not paying the money demanded illegally. Moreover 2nd opposite party issued notice without verifying records and the intention is to harass the complainants by placing them under gun point of a disconnection threat for turning down the illegal demand. Hence this complaint for cancellation of the disconnection notice dated 12.06.2003 issued by opposite parties and for compensation of Rs. 50000/- and for replacement of water meter at the opposite parties' expense if it is defective and for costs of Rs. 2000/-. <br /> Opposite parties filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Complainant is a consumer under the KWA as per No. 5447/D. The connection was for domestic. On 24.05.2003 a complaint was received alleging the leakage from the water supply line. The said complaint was registered as complaint No. 2725 dated 24.5.2003. On receipt of the said complaint the official of KWA enquired the matter and from the site inspection it was found that the leakage caused was from the service line of the present complainant. As per the KWA rules and regulations any leakage of the service line of the consumer has to be rectified by the complainant himself and in case the consumer defaults the KWA Officers will take necessary action for preventing the flow of water from the leakage portion along the public road in order to avoid public hindrance and wastage of water. Accordingly oral instruction was given to the complainant from the KWA that the leakage has to be rectified by the complainant's expenses but the complainant turned a deaf ear. Thus KWA issued notice to the complainant to rectify the leakage within 3 days. Already huge quantity of water was lost through the leakage as such KWA officials had no other remedy than to plug the leakage portion of the pipe line. The water connection to the complainant which was plugged has been restored on 19.06.2003 as per the order of this Hon'ble Forum. The cost of material, labour charges etc. are to be recovered from the complainants. Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed in the complaint. <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:-<br /> (i)Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Whether complainant is entitled to get cancelled the disconnection notice dated 12.06.2003 issued by opposite parties?<br /> (iii)Reliefs and costs.<br /> On the part of the complainants the 2nd complainant as PW1 filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts. P1 to P3 were marked. On the part of opposite parties 2nd opposite party filed affidavit and Ext. D1 was marked.<br /> Points (i) to (iii):- The first point requiring consideration is whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The 1st complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties having consumer No.KMA 5744/D. 2nd complainant is the husband of the 1st complainant. 1st complainant had been paying water charges without any default. On 13.06.2003 two subordinates from the 2nd opposite party's office came to the complainant's residence and told 2nd complainant that there was leakage of water through distribution main pipe and demanded Rs. 1500/- from him for rectification of the same. 2nd complainant did not respond positively since the leakage was through the distribution main pipe. On 13.06.2003 a notice dated 12.06.2003 was issued by the 3rd opposite party to the 2nd complainant. The said notice is marked as Ext. P1. Ext. P2 is the copy of the receipt of water charges issued by the 2nd opposite party. From Ext. P2 it is evident that 1st complainant is the consumer of opposite parties. Ext. P1 notice was issued to the 2nd opposite party who is not a consumer of opposite parties. It is pertinent to note that Ext. P1 was issued to the 2nd complainant(who is not a consumer of opposite parties) informing him the violation of water supply regulations. As per item 3 of Ext. P1 it is stated that 2nd complainant had defaulted payment of water under Clause 14(a) and © of KWA. But opposite party did not disclose from which date onwards the said default was committed. The defaulted amount was not shown in Ext. P1 and no arrear bill was issued to that effect also. As per item 8 of Ext. P1 2nd complainant was directed to replace defective meter at his cost with the consent of the opposite parties is under the provisions of clause 12(c) of KWA amendment 1997. As per item 11 of Ext. P1 2nd complainant was directed to rectify the leakage of the service line of the consumer at his cost under the supervision of opposite parties. On going through the contents of Exts. P1 and P2 it is crystal clear that opposite parties had never issued notice to the real consumer having consumer No. KWA 5447/D, Karamana. The real consumer is the 1st complainant. Ext. P2 reveals that 1st complainant was up to date in payment of water charges. Further no arrear bill was issued to the 1st complainant as per meter reading. Ext. P1 and D1 are one and the same. No further material on record to show that 1st complainant had violated water Authority Regulations. No prior intimation was given to the 1st complainant regarding the defect of water meter. As per version it is stated that on 24.05.2003 opposite party received a complaint from the public regarding the leakage from the water supply line. The said complaint was registered as complaint No. 7725 and the site inspection was done on 11.06.2003. From the version itself it is evident that such inspection was done after 7 days from the receipt of the said complaint. Opposite party never furnished the said complaint registered before this forum for substantiating the veracity of the complaint. It is not clear from the version why such a long delay happened for site inspection of the opposite parties, since the matter reported by way of complaint required urgent attention. Any way if there was leakage as alleged in the version the same might have rectified by the opposite parties. Whether rectification was done by the opposite parties, if done when was it done, where was the said rectification work done, whether along the service line or though the distribution line, all these are the things need to be substantiated by the opposite parties by way of cogent evidence. Opposite parties never adduced any evidence either documentary or oral to prove the contention in Ext. P1. Unless and until the contention in Ext. P1 is strictly proved by opposite parties, what we can presume is that the said contention in Ext. P1 is hypothetical, unreasonable and improper. Opposite party failed to prove the reasons for issuance of Ext. P1. We find the issuance of Ext. P1 notice dated 12.06.2003 is illegal. Complainant is entitled to get cancelled the disconnection notice dated 12.06.2003. Since the said notice was not issued to the 1st complainant, the 1st complainant is not bound to answer the said notice. Opposite parties had issued the said notice without perusing and verifying original records. The learned counsel appearing for complainant submitted that after filing this complaint opposite parties disconnected the water connection of the 1st complainant's residence on 17.06.2003. On 18.06.2003 the predecessors of this Forum directed to restore water connection. By illegal action of opposite parties, complainant had been put to much difficulties for two days. Complainants had to depend on other sources for water because of the illegal act of opposite parties. The submission by the counsel of the complainant that complainants had spent about Rs. 6,000/- for transportation of water for two days and the receipt for the same is marked as Ext. P3. The person who had issued Ext. P3 receipt was not examined. Moreover the said receipt is seen issued in the name of the 2nd complainant who is not a consumer under the KWA as per Consumer No. 5744/D. Hence this Forum need not consider Ext. P3 receipt. Since water connection of 1st complainant's residence was disconnected by opposite parties without issuing notice to the 1st complainant/consumer the said disconnection is illegal. This would amount to deficiency in service for which the 1st complainant is to be compensated by opposite parties. As per clause 12(c) of KWA amendment 1997 if water meter is found defective it should be replaced by a new meter at the cost of the consumer with the knowledge and consent of the opposite parties. In the instant case opposite parties never served notice to the 1st complainant/consumer intimating her to replace the existing meter with a new one. Hence complainants are not entitled to get an order directing the opposite parties to replace the water meter at opposite parties' expense. <br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed. Disconnection notice dated 12.06.2003 issued to the 2nd complainant by the 3rd opposite party is cancelled. The order dated 18.06.2003 restoring the water connection of the 1st complainant's residence is made absolute. Opposite parties are directed to pay to the 1st complainant Rs. 2000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- towards costs of the complaint. <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th May, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> jb<br /> <br /> O.P.No. 242/2003<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS : <br /> NIL<br /> II COMPLAINANTS' DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - True copy of Notice dated 12.06.2003 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. <br /> <br /> P2 - True copy of receipt dated 19.05.2003.<br /> <br /> P3 - True copy of receipt of Rs. 6000/-.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> <br /> DW1 - K. Sundaresan<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> <br /> D1 - True copy of notice dated 12.06.2003 issued by the opposite party.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br />