KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 276/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 23.07.2019

(Against the Order in C.C. 117/2013 of CDRF, Kottayam)

PRESENT : 

SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                                : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. Kerala Water Authority, represented by the Managing Director, Jala Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Authority, Kottayam Sub Division, Kottayam.

(By Adv. Issac Samuel)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Sajeen Ragh. A.R, Ananda Mandapam, Sreenivasa Iyyer Road, Kottayam.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER

The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C. No. 117/2013 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam.  The respondent is the complainant.  The case of the complainant in the lower forum is that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties, Water Authority having water connection which is in the name of his father vide consumer No. K 17/87 under sub division, Kottayam.  According to the complainant on 06.05.2013, Mr. V.A. John, the licensed contractor under the opposite party and his employees arrived in front of the complainant’s house for repairing the pipe line and demanded him to pay some amount.  But the complainant has not cared to pay the amount.  So on the same day, they had disconnected the water connection of the complainant.  Then on the next day, he made a complaint with the 2^nd opposite party.  But 2^nd opposite party refused to accept the same.  According to the complainant, he had regularly remitted the bills issued by the opposite party from 1963 and there were no dues.  And the opposite party has not issued any notice till 06.05.2013, the disconnection date.  According to the complainant, the act of opposite party in disconnecting his water connection amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint.

2. Opposite party filed version contending that the disconnected water connection vide consumer No. K-17/87/D is in the name of Sri. C.R. Raghavanandan.  According to the opposite party, there were frequent complaints from the residents of Sreeenivasa Iyer Road in Kottayam Municipality that they had scarcely in getting water and had bad smell in the pipeline water.  Smt. Mary Korah and Elizabath Korah (residents of Sreenivasa Iyer road) complained about this matter.  So the Asst. Manager inspected the site and found that contaminated water from the near flat building and printing press is entering into the pipe line water of Kerala Water Authority.  The water from the printing press contains chemicals and it corroded the house connection of the residents including the disputed water connection.  This was brought to the notice of the people who were affected by this problem.  As per rule, the consumer has to repair the water connection pipeline from the connection point to the premises of the consumers.  All other people who were affected by this problem have replaced the corroded pipe line by their own cost.  The complainant was advised to repair the pipe line through licensed Kerala Water Authority plumber to avoid contamination of water.  The 2^nd opposite party reported the facts to Kottayam Municipal Authorities for taking health and hygienic measures.  Then on 07.05.2013 they issued a notice to the complainant, directing to repair the corroded pipe line of his house connection with immediate effect.  But the complainant refused to accept the notice.   In order to avoid contamination of water and considering the interest of General Public a letter was sent to Sri. E.R. Raghavanandan on 07.05.2013 by registered post.  But the registered letter was returned due to the expiry of the addressee.  According to the opposite parties, the 2^nd opposite party advised the complainant, when he approached, to replace the corroded pipe line at his own cost to avoid contamination of water.  But the complainant had refused to repair the pipe line.  Now the complainant has every opportunity to reconnect the water connection by his own cost through a licensed plumber under the intimation of Kerala Water Authority, as per Rules.  According to the opposite parties, they had disconnected the disputed water connection as per rules and there is no deficiency in service on the part of them.  And opposite parties prayed for the direction to the complainant to transfer the ownership of the water connection and also prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

3.  Evidence in this case consisted of the proof affidavit of both sides, and Ext. A1 and C1 commission report from the side of the complainant and Ext. B1 to B3 documents from the side of opposite parties.

4.  The finding of the District Forum is that as per Ext. C1 report the commissioner reported that the pipe line drawn to the complainant’s premises is not damaged.  Opposite party failed to prove that the connection given to the complainant’s premises from connection point to premises was damaged.  If there was damage to the service connection from the connection point to the premises, then only complainant is liable to rectify the same.  Even though opposite party has a definite case that all other people who were affected by the problem has replaced the corroded pipe line by their own cost, the commissioner in his Ext. C1 report stated that on enquiry it was noticed that opposite party has not disconnected the water connection of any other people in that area.  Therefore the District Forum found that the act of the opposite party in disconnecting the service connection of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the forum allowed the complainant and ordered the opposite party to reconnect the water connection of the complainant with immediate effect and also allowed Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs of the proceedings. 

5.  Aggrieved by the impugned Order the appellants filed this appeal.  The appellant argued that the pipe line of the respondent was disconnected as per the rules in order to avoid further contamination of water to the residents through the pipe line of the complainant.  But as per Ext. C1 report the pipe line drawn to the respondent’s premises is not damaged.  Hence there is no need to repair the pipe line of the service connection of the complainant.  So we also consider that the act of the opposite parties in disconnecting the service connection of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. 

Based on the above discussion we do not find any error in the impugned order of the District Forum.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  No order of costs.

T.S.P MOOSATH     :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                                                                                   BEENA KUMARY. A        : MEMBER