Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/406

KERALA WATER AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEELAKANDA PILLAI - Opp.Party(s)

ISSAC SAMUEL

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

     

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.406/16

JUDGMENT DATED:18.07.2016

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

1. The Secretary,

Kerala Water Authority                                                                

Jala Bhavan, TVPM-001.

                                                                                                : APPELLANTS

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

Sub Division Office,

Ponkunnam, Kottayam-686 506.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Issac Samuel)

 

            Vs.

1. P. Neelakanda Pillai.

Perumbrakunnel, Mundakayam Post,

Kottayam.

 

2. Anandavally Mohanan,

Puthuparambil, Mundakayam Post,

Kottayam.

 

3. P.C. Reghunath,

Mudathil Puthen Veedu, Mundakayam Post,

Kottayam.

 

4. Omana Chellappan,

Puthuparambil,  Mundakayam Post,                             : RESPONDENTS

Kottayam.

 

5. Lissyamma Varghese,

Velacheri,, Mundakayam Post,

Kottayam.

6. Kamalamma,

Ambalaparambil,  Mundakayam Post,

Kottayam.

 

7. Marykutty Thomas,

Nattuvayalil,  Mundakayam Post,

Kottayam.

 

8. Oommen T.M,

Thoppil House, Mundakayam Post,

Kottayam.

 

9. Bindu Reghunathan,

Pulimootil Thekkethil, Mundakayam Post,

Kottayam.

 

10. Saramma Joseph,

Thundiplackal,  Mundakayam Post,

Kottayam.

 

11. Secretary,

India Penthakosth Sabha,

Chelikuzhi, Mundakayam Post,

Kottayam.

 

JUDGMENT

HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT

 

This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.61/2015 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated April 29, 2016 directing the opposite parties, Kerala Water Authority to give proper adequate water supply to the complainants and to pay a compensation of Rs.1000/- each of the complainants and to pay a cost of Rs.5000/-.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

The 11 complainants are the consumers of the opposite parties, Kerala Water Authority.  They have water connection to their house.  The opposite parties did not provide them with water from December 2012 to July 2013.  Therefore they filed a complaint before the Taluk Legal Services Authority and thereafter water was supplied from August 2013 onwards and the matter was settled before the Adalath.  On August 15, 2014 opposite parties gave a new connection from the connection pipe. Thereafter complainants could not get water which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Complainants filed a complaint seeking a direction to direct the opposite parties to supply meter to the complainants and also claiming compensation.

3.      The first opposite party is Secretary, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram and 2^nd opposite party is the Assistant Engineer of Kerala Water Authority, Sub Divisional Office, Ponkunnam, Kottayam.  They in their version contended thus before the Forum:-  complainants were residing at high altitude and therefore complainants can get water only if the reservoir is full and the valves are adjusted.  Further the persons residing in low altitude are illegally extracting water from the pipe.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

4.      On the side of the complainants, Exts.A1 and A2 were marked and no evidence was adduced by the opposite parties before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and directed them to give proper adequate water supply to the complainants.  Forum has also directed the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.1000/- to each of the complainants and a cost of Rs.5000/-.  The opposite parties have come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      When the appeal came up for admission today, counsel for the appellant was heard.

6.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

7.      It is admitted that complainants had water connection from the opposite party.   It is also not disputed that complainants are not getting water now.  The explanation of the opposite parties is that complainants were residing at high altitude and that therefore opposite parties are not able to supply water and that only if the reservoir is full and valves are adjusted water can be supplied to them.

8.      Regulation-7 of Kerala Water Authority Supply (water supply) Regulation-1991, provides that connection shall not be given to a consumer if in the opinion of the Assistant Executive Engineer, the pressure in the pipe line is not sufficient for providing connection.  Therefore it has to be presumed that there is sufficient pressure in the main pipe line to provide water.  No supply of water even after giving connection amounts to deficiency of service for which complainants have to be compensated.  The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.  The Forum has directed the opposite party to give proper and adequate supply to the complainants, to pay Rs.1000/- each of them and Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost.  We find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

In the result I find no ground to admit the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

 

VL.                                            JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT