IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2022

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt.  Bindhu R,  Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 132/2021 (filed on 30-07-2021)

Petitioner                                             :         K.M. Sasidharan,

                                                                      S/o. Madhavan,

                                                                      Kaniamparambil House,

                                                                      Kooropada P.O - 686102

                                                                      (Adv. T.R.Sathian)                                                           

                                                                                Vs.                            

Opposite Party                                     :         MathrumalaJalanidhiSudhaJala

                                                                      VitharanaSamithy,

                                                                      Kooroppada P.O.Kooropada

                                                                      GramaPanchayath,

                                                                      Koorapada,

Reg. No.KTM/TC/496/2013

Rep. by the Secretary,

                                                                      Harimkumar,

S/o. Raveendran Nair,

                                                                      SoumyaBhavan,

Kooropada - 686102

                                                            O  R  D  E  R

Smt.  Bindhu R,  Member

          The Complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The averments of the complainant are that he was a founder member and the first / founder secretary of the opposite party.  The opposite party is a registered society with 42 consumers with stipulated membership fees for supplying drinking water.  If the consumer fails to pay the monthly charges, the water supply will be disconnected.  The petitioner used to pay the monthly charges under consumer no.37 regularly irrespective of the fact that he had not been given water supply continuously for the past 2 and more years.  Even after repeated demands, the opposite party declined to re-instate water supply to the petitioner.  The opposite party society was constituted for the supply of drinking water in ward no.16 of KooroppadaGramaPanchayath.  The installation of bowel, motor pump set, drawing of pipe lines, installation of electric motor, availing electricity connection, registration of society, construction of water tank etc. were conducted during the tenure of the complainant as the secretary under the supervision and direct control of the officials of jalanidhi and Kooroppadagramapanachayath.  The project is of the government of Kerala through Jalanidhi under the direct control and supervision of the local self-governments implemented for the well-being of its Members.  The newly elected Secretary of the opposite party after the tenure of the complainant was in inimical terms with the complainant due to political rivalry and personal grudge.  There is no water supply to the petitioner for the past two and more years, yet he is regularly paying the amount.  The consumption charges are fixed according to the whims and fancies of the meter readers in full knowledge that there is no water supply.  Inspite of repeated demands and requests, the opposite party is not caring to rectify those complaints, resulting heavy losses to the complainant.  The opposite party is duty bound to provide water supply to the petitioner.  The complainant’s connection is not yet disconnected.  The mandatory clause to remit the water charges irrespective of any non-user consumption of water is a shield to avoid the disconnection of water supply to the complainant which is caused losses and injuries to the petitioner.  The legal notice sent by the complainant in this regard on 26-04-21 was received by the opposite party.  But no defects were rectified nor any reply was sent.  So the complaint is filed against the deficiency of service of the opposite party to give a direction to the opposite party to reinstate the water connection and to pay consequential cost and compensation. 

          Though the opposite party received notice from this Commission, they did not care to appear or file version.

          The complainant has filed proof affidavit along with 5 documents which are marked as Ext.A1 to A5. 

          On a detailed perusal of the complaint and evidence on record following points are framed.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, whether the complainant is eligible for re-instatement of water connection and consequential reliefs.

Point No.1 and 2

      The complaint is filed for the reinstatement of the water connection of the complainant obtained through the opposite party being a consumer of it which was disconnected due to the deficient acts of the opposite party. 

     The complainant avers that he has been a member of the opposite party society from the very constitution of it and almost more than two years, he has not been getting water supply without any valid reasons.  The only reason apprehended by him is the personal grudge of the office bearers who held the office after his secretaryship.  Though there was no water supply, the complainant was very particular in paying the monthly charges of water to the Society as he cared about the proper functioning of the Society. 

     The complainant claims that he had been paying the water charges regularly, and Ext.A2 has been produced before us.  From A2, it is seen that the complainant has paid the water charges up to 28-03-2021. The opposite parties did not turn-up to contest the case and so  there is no contrary evidence before us to disprove the allegation of the complainant.  Ext.A3 is the legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party demanding the reconnection of his watersupply.  No reply was received by the complainant from the opposite party to Ext.A3.  So we would infer that though the opposite party is well aware of the situation has not responded to the grievances of the complainant causing him to approach this Commission.  Even before this Commission, the opposite party has not turned up.  So from the pleadings and evidence we would come to the conclusion that the complainant being the consumer of the opposite party is entitled for a regular water supply without any interruption.  So the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to

1. Reinstate the water connection of the complainant by ensuring regular supply of water.
2. Levy the consumption charges only in accordance with the actual consumption.
3. To give Rs.3,000/- to the complainant towards compensation.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22^ndday of March, 2022.

Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-

          Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                   Sd/-  

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

A1  -  Copy of certificate

A2 – Copy of bye-law of the samithy

A3– Copy of letter dtd.26-04-2021 by complainant

A4 – Postal receipt

A5 – Postal acknowledgement card

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

Nil

                                                                                            By Order

                                                                                  Assistant Registrar