KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL 138/2004 JUDGMENT DATED:10.12.2007
Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Kottayam in OP.504/02
PRESENT SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
1. The Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Collectorate.P.O., Kottayam.
2. The Asst.Engineer, : APPELLANTS K.W.A., P.H.Sub Division, Gandhi Nagar, (By Adv.C.Sasidharan Pillai)
Vs. Rani Royce, : RESPOINDENT Chirayil House, Mannanam.
JUDGMENT
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 21st January 2004 of the CDRF, Kottayam in OP No.504/02. the complaint in OP.No.504/2002 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants as opposite parties 1 and 2 claiming compensation of Rs.10000/- and for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and also for a direction to restore the water supply to the premises of the complainant. The opposite parties denied the case of deficiency in service and contended that the supply of water to the Madappally area became temporarily defunct due to the destruction of the water supply line as a result of reconstruction of the road by PWD. The lower Forum accepted the case of the complainant and thereby directed the opposite parties to restore the water supply line to Madappally area where the premises of the complainant is located and to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- with a cost of Rs.750/-. Aggrieved by the said order the appeal is preferred by the opposite parties in OP.504/02. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. There was no representation for the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellants argued for the position that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties in effecting supply of water to the premises of the complainant/respondent; but the water supply was stopped only due to the destruction of the water line on account of widening of the road by the Public Works Department. Hence the appellants/opposite parties requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the lower Forum. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- Whether the case of the complainant/respondent that there occurred deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties can be accepted? Is there occurred any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower Forum?
4. Points 1 and 2:- We will refer the parties of this appeal according to their status before the lower Forum in OP.504/02. 5. There is no dispute that the complainant is a consumer under the opposite parties. The complainant’s consumer No.is 42 and her premises is located under the Madappally water supply scheme. There is no default on the part of the complainant in effecting payment of water charges due to the Kerala Water Authority. The complainant paid water charges in advance on 14.9.98 and thereby the water charges upto August 1999 remitted in advance. Thus the opposite parties being officials of KeralalWater Authority are bound to effect supply of water to the complainant as a consumer. It is admitted fact that from September 1998 onwards the water supply to the premises of the complainant has been stopped. According to the opposite parties, they could not restore the water supply to Madappally area where the complainant’s premises is located, because of the destruction of water supply line while reconstructing public road by the PWD. 6. It is to be noted that the water supply to the Madappally area has been stopped for a long period. The complaint in OP.504/02 was filed in the year 2002 and the impugned order was passed in January 2004. In effect, for about 2 years water supply to the Madappally area has been stopped and the opposite parties could not restore water supply to that area where the premises of the complainant is located. It is the duty of the opposite parties to see that the water supply is restored to that area without any undue delay. The case of the opposite parties that the water supply to that area was stopped temporarily cannot be accepted as such. In fact the supply of water to that area was stopped for a long period and no effective steps have been taken by the Kerala Water Authority to see that the water supply is restored to that area. The case of the opposite parties that they could not restore the water supply due to paucity of fund cannot be taken as a sufficient ground to excuse the opposite parties. It is hard to believe that the KWA could not restore supply of water to a particular area due to financial difficulties. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the opposite parties had taken necessary steps for providing water supply to the affected area. 7. The materials on record would show that the opposite parties failed to restore the water supply in Madappally area where the complainants premises is located. It is also come out in evidence that even after repeated requests the opposite parties were not in a position to do the necessary things, so as to make the supply of water to the affected area. The complainant being a consumer of KWA is entitled to get the supply of water to her premises. Moreover, the complainant remitted the water charges in advance. Thus, the finding of the lower Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in restoring the water supply to the premises of the complainants can be upheld. The reasoning given by the lower Forum is sound and acceptable. If that be so, the lower Forum has perfectly justified in awarding compensation of Rs.2000/-. In fact the lower Forum had taken a very lenient view in favour of the opposite parties in quantifying the compensation at Rs.2000/-. The lower Forum is also justified in awarding cost of Rs.750/- to the complainant. 8. The opposite parties are also directed to take immediate steps for laying water supply line to Madappally area and give water supply to the complainant. There is nothing wrong in giving such a direction for the purpose of effecting supply of water to the premises of the complainant. The lower Forum has also rightly ordered to refund the advance water charges paid by the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, in the event the opposite parties failed to effect supply of water to the premises of the complainant. The impugned order passed by the lower Forum is just and proper. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower Forum. These points are answered accordingly.
In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 21.1.2004 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in OP.504/02 is confirmed. In the circumstances of the case the parties to this appeal are directed to suffer their respective costs.
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
ps | 
