CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2012.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 11/07/2012
CC .No/123/2012
Balakrishnan Nair.K, (Retd. Air Force),
Aged 68 years,
'Jay Sree', Anamari, Erattakulam P.O,
Anjumurthy Via, Alathur. - Complainant
Palakkad – 678 682
(By Adv.M. Raveendran)
Vs
Secretary,
Kavassery Grama Panchayath,
Kavassery P.O, Alathur, - Opposite party
Palakkad – 678 543
(By Adv.A.V. Ravi)
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
Brief facts of the Complaint is as follows :
The complainant is having a domestic water connection from the opposite party as Consumer No. 293, since the year 2000. The complainant was getting sufficeint drinking water till 2004. Afterwards the Panchayath issued more connection without looking in to the capacity of water. The complainant made several requests to get water in plenty. But no action was taken by the opposite party. On 12/04/12 the complainant submitted a written request to the opposite party. After that the opposite party inspected and demanded the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs 1651/-. But the complainant disagreed to remit the same at first as he was not liable to pay any amount towards the existing connection to get sufficeint water. Then the complainant remitted the said amount in the opposite party . Then also the opposite party has not provided any service to supply drinking water properly. So the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party through Forum for Consumer Justice, Alathur to make arrangements to supply water properly. Forum for Consumer Justice sent a registered letter to the opposite party to do the needful action for getting sufficient water to the complainant. But nothing has done by the opposite party. The above act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in serivice on their part. So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite party to
Do the needful action for getting sufficeint drinking water to the complanant's domestic water connection.
Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony.
Rs. 1000/- as cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions.
Opposite party admits that the complainant is enjoying the water connection facility at Kavassery Grama Panchayath. It is not true to say that the Panchayath issued connection without looking in to the capacity of water . According to the opposite party the complainant is getting sufficeint water from the existing connection itself. But he was not satisfied and requested the Panchayath to provide connection from the pipe line provided on the opposite side of his gate. If such a connection is to be given, the panchayath road is to be dismantle from one side to the other side. So that the Panchayath directed the complainant to pay Rs. 1651/- towards road cutting fee applicable to PWD roads. That was paid and the Panchayath permitted the complainant to cut the road to provide pipe line. There after the complainant has to put pipe lines so as to connect the pipe line on the road at his own expenses with the help of a plumber who is having license from the Panchayath and after completion of work a certificate is to be submitted before the Panchayath. Then only the Panchayath can connect the pipe line to the opposite side of the main line.
Even now opposite party is ready to give connection to the compalinant on completion of the works. There is no difficulties for the opposite party to refund the amount remitted by the complainant towards road cutting fee. So that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits and Ext. A1 to A5 and Ext B1 and B2 are marked. Complainant and opposite party were cross examined as PW1 and DW1.
Heard both parties.
Issues to be considered are
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party ?
If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issue I & II
It is the admitted fact that complainant is having a domestic water connection from the opposite party as consumer No. 293. Complainant alleges that he is not getting sufficeint water during the summer season. So the complainant submitted an application to solve his problem. Accordingly the opposite party inspected and demanded the complainant to pay Rs. 1651/- towards road cutting fee that was paid by the complainant. It is evident from Ext. A2 document . According to the complainant the said amount was paid for getting sufficient water.
Opposite party contents that the complainant was getting sufficeint water from the existing connection itself. But he was not satisfied and therefore requested the Panchayath to provide connection from the pipe line provided on the opposite side of the complainant's gate. For this the Panchayath road is to be dismantled from one side to the other. So the Panchayath directed the complainant to pay Rs. 1651/- towards road cutting fee. There after the complainant has to put necessary pipelines so as to connect the pipeline on the road at his own expenses with the help of a plumber who is having license from the Panchayath. But the complainant disagreed to do so. Complainant contents that the amount, as per Ext A2 document was paid for getting sufficeint water to the complainant. But Ext. A2 document shows that the amount is paid towards road cutting fee. There is no evidence to show that the complainant is not getting sufficeint water during the summer season. In the version itself opposite party expressed their willingness to provide connection from the opposite side pipe line of his gate on completing the necessary steps. Complainant was also informed the same by the opposite party through Ext B2 document. It is also informed that the opposite party is ready to refund the amount deposited by the complainant towards road cutting fee, if he does not want water connection from the opposite side pipe line of his gate.
From the above discussions we are not in a position to attribute any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
In the result complaint dismissed. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of November, 2012.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Copy of Receipt dtd. 12/04/2012
Ext.A2 – Copy of Estimate report dtd. 04/06/2012 and fee receipt of work dtd. 24/04/12.
Ext. A3 – Receipt bill of water charge including may 2012.
Ext.A4 – Copy of Registered letter of Forum for Consumer Justice secretary sent to opposite party dtd. 25/06/2012.
Ext.A5 - Copy of Acknowledgement card.
Exhibitsmarked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1- Letter of complainant to permission of cut road dtd. 8/05/12.
Ext.B2- Copy of letter sent to Forum for Consumer Justice, Alathur. Dtd. 9/07/12.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 - Balakrishnan Nair
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW1 - Haresh. K.D
Cost allowed
No cost allowed
