BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 21st day December 2013
Filed on : 23-07-2011
PRESENT:
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.388/2011
Between
Mary Rocky, : Complainant
W/o. Rocky, res. In CC17/1878, (By Adv. V.N. Vasanthkumar,
Pandiyalassery house, Mundamveli, CC 12/287, Pandikudi, Kochi-2)
Cochin-682 507.
Vs
1.Superintending Engineer, : Opposite parties
Kerala Water Authority, (O.P.1 to 3 ByAdv.P.A.Augustine,
PH Circle, Kochi-11. Standing Counsel, Kerala Water
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Authority)
KWA Sub Division, Karuvelipady,
Cochin-5.
3. Kerala Water Authority,
Rep. by Managing Director,
KWA, Vellayambalam, Jala Bhavan,
Thiruvananthapuram.
4. P.M. Rajesh Babu, (4th O.P.by Adv. Juby Raj,
Plumber, L. No. 23/92, Infant Jesus Building,
PHED Quarters, Thoppumpady, 2nd Floor, CC58/1452, Opp.
Kochi-682 005. High Court of Kerala,
( 4th O.P. was deleted from the party Ernakulam, Kochi-31.)
Array vide order dated 29-09-2012)
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant applied for a potable water connection before the 2nd opposite party on 20-04-2007 through the 4th opposite party. The application was registered as PL – 115/2008. The complainant came to know that the 2nd opposite party had been issuing water connection to other applicants by overlooking the seniority of the complainant. On enquiry the complainant learnt that a water connection stands in the building of the complainant bearing No. CC 17/1888 A. The said connection had been granted to the house bearing No. 17/1888 (I) owned by one Mrs. Mary Augustine. The number was mistakenly noted as CC17/1888 (A) instead of CC17/1888 (I). The complainant pointed out the mistake committed by the 2nd opposite party. At that juncture the opposite parties stated another reason that there was an unlawful water connection to the residence of the complainant from consumer No. CC No.17/770/D belonging to one Mr. PR. Joseph. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not issuing drinking water supply to the complainant. The complainant is loosing Rs. 4,000/- per month towards rent which is receivable from the building. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to release the water connection to the complainant and to pay a compensation of 96,000/- being the loss towards rent of the building and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The Version of opposite parties 1 to 3 is as follows:
On receipt of the application from the complainant the 2nd opposite party visited the premises of the complainant to prepare a feasibility report. On 29-10-2008 the 2nd opposite party prepared a feasibility report and it is noted that there is an existing water connection to building No. 17/1888 (A). So the application of the complainant was kept in abeyance. The complainant has produced an ownership certificate from Cochin Corporation stating that building No. CC 17/1888 (A) belongs to the complainant. Since a water connection has been provided to the very same number in 1997, the complainant has to clear the lacuna. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. The 4th opposite party was impleaded in the part array, as per order in I.A. No. 286/2012 dated 09-05-2012 and thereafter he was deleted from the party array vide order dated 29-09-2012. The witness for the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A10 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Exts. B1 to B5 were marked. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get water connection?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of
Rs.96,000/- being the loss of rent and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs
of the proceedings?
5. Point No. i. Admittedly during the proceedings in this Forum in November 2012 the opposite parties provided water connection to the complainant. So further discussion on this point is no more called for.
6. Point No. ii. According to the complainant she submitted Ext. A1 application for water connection and complied with all the formalities on 18-11-2007. She stated that there is in ordinate delay in issuing water connection to the complainant without any reasons. It is further stated that due to the delay in issuing water connection she could not rent out the building in time and she had to suffer a loss to the tune of Rs. 96,000/- towards the same.
7. On the contrary, the opposite parties contented that the complainant submitted application to issue a water connection to the building bearing No. 17/1888(A) and they could not provide the same since they had issued another water connection to the same building in 1997. According to them the complainant failed to sort out the issue and also it was found that the complainant had been misusing another water connection. They maintain that as and when the complainant clarified the issue they provided water connection to the complainant even during the pendency of the proceedings.
8. Ext. B1 goes to show that a water connection has been granted in favour of one Ms. Mary Augustine bearing building No. 1888(A). The complainant produced her ownership certificate showing that she is the owner in possession of the building No. 1888 (A) and Ms. Mary Augustine is in possession of the building No. 1888 (1). On production of both the certificates the opposite party corrected the mistake in their register with effect from 01-02-2012 and thereafter they had taken steps to issue a water connection in furtherance of Ext. A1 application. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties issued Ext. A5 letter dated 18-04-2011 high lighting the above points. Instead of correcting the disputed documents which she ought to have the complainant had unnecessarily been running from pillar to post to get her grievances redressed before various Authorities. Exts. B3 to B5 would show that on receipt of the documents the opposite party had taken earnest efforts to issue water connection to the complainant to which there was no positive response or compliance on the part of the complainant. It is worthwhile to note that the complainant did not mount the box to prove her contentions stated in the complaint in this Forum especially when she had placed so much vehemence on the seeming lackadaisical attitude on the part of the opposite parties. The adage of the pestle and mortar is resounding. In view of the above we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. The Hon’ble Appex Court in Rajasthan Financial Corporation and another Vs. Commander S.C Jain (Retd) and another 2010 CTJ 481 (Supreme Court) (CP) held that ”thus it is clear that the Act has provided for correcting the shortcomings in the service or goods provided by way of awarding compensation or other means specified in the provision above mentioned only when the consumer Forum comes to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service provided or goods sold. The loss suffered by the respondent for the reason of not being able to start the unit can not be the basis for awarding the compensation specifically when the respondent was at fault for the non release of the balance loan amount. Therefore when there is no deficiency found on the part of the appellant corporation it can not be asked to pay compensation”.
10. Moreover the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geekay Agropack (P) Ltd. And Anr. Vs. State bank of Mysore 2008 CTJ 561 (Supreme Court) (CP) held that “a consumer forum can award compensation only for the deficiency in service of the trader or service provider. For the recovery of any other loss, it is open to the consumer to file a Civil Suit”.
11. The cause stated for the prayer for compensation has only to be ruled out in the light of the above decisions wherein the complainant has in the first place has not shown a proven deficiency on the part of the opposite parties especially when in spite of pending of the complaint they had shown the good will to grant water connection to the complainant. Secondly for want of cognizable proof or evidence brought on record by the complainant if not only for a mere apprehensive wish also goes against law upholding the second citation. The only observation which this Forum finds short coming only on the failure of both parties in having cited either of the cases mentioned above a little more indulgence in cases would definitely be more appreciable.
12. In view of the above we are only to dismiss the complaint. Ordered accordingly.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21st day of December 2013.
Sd/-A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Application for water
supply service (New connection)
A2 : Copy of receipt
A3 : Ownership certificate
A4 : Estimate of Labour charge (series)
(2 numbers)
A5 : letters (series) (2 numbers)
A6 : copy of petition filed as per right to
information act.
A7 : Ownership certificate
A8 : Copy of letter dt. 10-01-2011
A9 : Copy of letter dt. 13/10/
A10 : Copy of letter dt. 30-10-2010
Opposite party’s exhibits:
Ext. B1 : Copy of Ownership certificate
B2 : Copy of application for water supply
service (New connection)
B3 : Copy of connection order
B4 : Copy of letter dt. 28-03-2012
B5 : Copy of ledger
Deposition s
PW1 : Nipin P.J.
