BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.186/2008

Between

Complainant : Thomas

Kadavil House,

Thopramkudy P.O.

Idukki.

(By Adv: Biju Vasudevan)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. P.D. Krishnankutty

Irumpanathu House,

President, Rajeev Gandhi Drinking

Water Project,

Reg.No.I 503/06

Thopramkudy P.O.

Idukki.

2. C.J. Kuriakose

Cherukarickal House,

Secretary, Rajeev Gandhi Drinking Water Project,

Idukki.

(Both by Adv: K.J. Thomas)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Complainant is residing at Thopramkudy kara and is a consumer of the Rajeev Gandhi Drinking water project in which the opposite parties one and two are the President and Secretary of the project respectively. In the year 2001-2002, the District Panchayath constructed this project by spending 17 lakhs rupees. As per the complaint forwarded by the petitioner to Lok Adalath at Udumbanchola, the Adalath directed the opposite parties to register this as a society before the District register. The water connection to complainant's residence was disconnected in the month December 2006 because of the enimity against the complainant. It was reconnected when the complainant filed a complaint before the Murikkassery Police. On 30/10/2008 the petitioner got a letter from the opposite parties, stating that the society incurred a loss of Rs.5,500/- because of the unnecessary complaints made by the complainant to various departments. It is also demanded the complainant to pay the amount within 10 days, otherwise his residential water connection would be disconnected. As per the bylaw of the society, the water connection shall be issued only for residential purpose. But the opposite party is distributing water to Hospitals, market, auditorium, telephone exchange etc., for commercial purpose. Because of this act of the opposite parties, the complainant is not getting water properly. Complainant is promptly paying the bills. Hence this petition is filed for restraining the opposite party from the disconnection of his water connection.

2. As per written version filed by the opposite party, the complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, because he is a member of the society conducting the project. The water connection of the complainant was disconnected on December 2006 only because there was a due in the water connection bill. It was restored when the bill was paid by the complainant. The complainant filed unnecessary complaints before the Adalath, Police Station, District Registrar etc against the society in which the petitioner is also a member. These unnecessary litigations made a loss of Rs.5,500/- to the society. All the complaints were disposed because, those were not having importance. In the public meeting of the society dated 12/10/2008, there were 63 members present including the complainant. All the members decided to take disciplinary action against the complainant as per clause 2(A) of the bylaw of the society. They decided to disconnect the water connection of the complainant if he does not pay Rs.5,500/- within 30 days to the society. It is also written in the minutes book. So the decision was taken by the public meeting. The society is working only for the benefit of the members without aiming any profit. The complainant declared in public that he decided to start another drinking water project in his property. So the complainant is filed only to harass the members of the society and liable to be dismissed.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of Exts.R1 to R4 marked on

the side of the opposite parties, and C1 is the Commission Report.

5. The POINT:- Complainant is a consumer of the Ist and 2nd opposite parties, who were the President and Secretary of Rajeev Gandhi Drinking Water project respectively. Complainant was examined as PW1. Rajeev Gandhi Drinking Water Project was started in period 2001-2002 by the Government spending 17 lakhs rupees for getting drinking water to the public. Complainant purchased his land and building including the water connection in the year 2004 from another person. PW1 is promptly paying the water connection charge to the opposite party. Ext.P2 is the copy of the receipt of the bill issued by the opposite party on 1.09.2008. The complainant filed a complaint before the Lok Adalath at Udumbanchola against the corruption conducted by the opposite parties. The project was registered under Societies Act. The water connection of the complainant was disconnected by the opposite party in December 2006 without any reason, again it was reconnected as per the direction of the Sub Inspector of Police, Murikkassery. Copy of the complaint to the Murikkassery police is marked as Ext.P4. Again a complaint was filed by the complainant to the District Registrar because the opposite parties never acted upon the bye-laws of the society. A notice was issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 30.10.2008 stating that the society has got a loss of Rs.5,500/- because of unnecessary complaints made by the complainant in various departments. It is written in the notice that "If the amount is not paid within 10 days the complainant's water connection will be disconnected", copy of the notice is marked as Ext.P1. The opposite party is selling water to hotels, hospitals, market, auditorium, telephone etc. which are not residential purpose. The complainant filed a petition before District Panchayath under Right to Information Act and as per their reply the Ist opposite party is the Convenor and 2nd opposite party is the committee member of the Thopramkudy Drinking water project.

The opposite party filed a written version and the learned counsel for opposite party cross examined PW1. As per the opposite party, the opposite party is a society registered before the District Registrar as I 503/06 for the drinking water project. There are 168 members for the society. The complainant is also a member of the society and so the complainant is not a consumer. Hence the petition is not maintainable. Petitioner's water connection was disconnected in December 2006 because of the non-payment of the water bill and not due to any other reason. The dues are cleared by the petitioner and so it was reconnected. There was a General Body Meeting of the committee on 12.10.2008. 63 persons including the complainant were present in the meeting. All the members unanimously stated that, disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against the complainant as per Section 2(A) of the bye-laws of the society. Unnecessary litigations and complaints were forwarded by the complainant against the society and so the society incurred a loss of Rs.5,500/-. "If the same is not paid within 30 days, the water connection of the complainant will be disconnected". This was the decision taken on that day. Ext.R3 is the copy of the minutes of the General Body. Complaint is having 2 cents

of land in that area and he is trying to start a drinking water project thereby himself. So it needs the destruction of the prevailing project. The complainant is acting upon that aim. Ext.R1 is the notice published by the complainant defaming the opposite party society. The complainant filed a petition against the opposite party at the office of District Registrar with copy of the commission Report alleging the corruption of the opposite party. It means that the complainant is purposefully disturbing the society.

The commission report was marked as Ext.C1. As per the commission report, the water connection of the complainant is still exists. It is also reported that the Rajeev Gandhi drinking water project is supplying water to hospitals, hotels, market, auditorium, soda factory, hollow bricks units, milk society etc. for non-residential purpose. So there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant that the Rajeev Gandhi Drinking Water project is supplying water to non-residential purpose. So the complainant might have made complaints against this. So we think that the opposite parties' direction in the notice to the complainant, to pay Rs.5,500/- is not proper. But the water connection of the complainant is still exists as per Ext.C1 report.

Hence the petition dismissed with a direction to the opposite parties, that the residence water connection of the complainant should not be disconnected by the reason that the complainant has not paid Rs.5,500/- to the opposite party, as the litigation charge caused to opposite party due to various complaints filed by the petitioner in various departmentrs.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2009.

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Thomas

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Copy of Notice issued by the opposite party dated 30/10/2008

Ext.P2 - Copy of receipt dated 1/09/2008

Ext.P3 - Copy of letter No.INS 2 1256/2008 dated 20/08/2008 of District Registrar,

Idukki.

Ext.P4 - Copy of complaint filed before the SI of Police, Murikkassery dated 4/12/2006.

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Notice published by the complainant dated 21/08/2006

Ext.R2 - Copy of Registration application for Charitable Institutions.

Ext.R3 - Copy of Minutes of General Body.

Ext.R4 - Copy of complaint filed before the District Registrar, Idukki dated 17/12/2008

Ext.C1 - Commission Report dated 3/12/2008.