BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008 Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.240/2006 Between Complainants : 1. K.K.Vasu, Kochuveettil House, Arakkulam P.O, Asoka Junction, Idukki District. 2. James Jacob, Moolayil House, Arakkulam P.O, Asoka Junction, Idukki District. (Both by Adv: V.V.Sunny) And Opposite Parties : 1. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Thodupuzha Sub Section, Thodupuzha. 2. The Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Thodupuzha Sub Section, Thodupuzha. (Both by Advs: G.Premnath & V.C.Sebastian) O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) The complaint is filed against the deficiency of service from the part of Water Authority for supplying drinking water. The wife of the Ist complainant purchased 10 cents of land and a house there from one Mary Chacko and residing there with the complainant in Arakkulam Grama Panchayath. The water connection for the residential building in the said property is in the name of the pre-owner and it is not changed by the Ist complainant’s wife. But the water charge is regularly paying by the Ist complainant. The 2nd complainant purchased 10 cents of land and a house near to that from one Thomas Mathew and the complainant is paying the water charge regularly even it is not changed in his name. One year advance payment of water charge was done by the complainants.The place where thecomplainants residing is affected by scarcity of drinking water and so they depend on the opposite parties for drinking water. Water Authority is not supplying drinking water in this area from June 2006 onwards. Several complaints were given directly and through telephone to opposite party 1 for the same. No response was from the part of opposite parties. It was told that the motor was burned when enquired about the same. But the complainants understood that they are pumping water to many other places. Mass petition was given to Irrigation Minister for the same. But no work was done from the part of opposite party for getting drinking water to the complainants. So the complaint is filed.
2. Opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version. The opposite party stated that the complainants are not the consumers of the opposite party and they are not paying the water bills to the opposite party. In Arakkulam Grama Panchayath at Kallari Colony Bhagom the Panchayath authorities had fitted a valve in the pipe line of the opposite party and appointed a pump operator there without the knowledge of opposite party. Only because of the same, some consumers are not getting drinking water. The opposite parties are not known about the complaint filed by the complainants. And so the petition is 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 P7 were marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 and R2 marked on the side of the opposite parties. 5. The POINT :- The Ist complainant's wife named P.S.Komalam purchased 10 cents of land and a residential building from one Mary Chacko and the Second complainant purchased his landed property with house from one Thomas Mathew. But they did not change their name in the water connection supplied by the opposite party. But regularly they are paying the bill of the Water Authority without any dues. Ext.P1 is the copy of the building tax receipt paid for the Ist complainant's house. Ext.P2 is the Provisional Invoice Card issued by the 2nd opposite party in the building. So there is no doubt that the complainants are the consumers of opposite party. After several complaints were made no response from the part of opposite party and so they filed mass petition before the concerned Minister by 32 consumers. Ext.P7 is the copy of the same. But no work was done by the opposite party for getting drinking water to them. Due to the arrogance against the complainants, the opposite party increased the water charge of the complainants from 22 to 34 per month. The neighbouring consumers are paying the fixed charge as Rs.22/-. Ext.P5 is the new provisional invoice card issued to the complainant by the opposite party in increased rate. Ext.P6 is the provisional invoice card of the co-complainant James Jacob which is in the name of his pre-building owner Thomas Mathew. Ext.P3 is the receipt of the bill paid by the Ist complainant in opposite party's office in the year 2005-2006, and 2006 to 2007. Exts. R1 and R2 are the true copies of the consumer personal ledger showing the meter reading of the Ist complainant and the 2nd complainant in the names Mary Chacko and Thomas Mathew respectively. So as per the documents the meter reading of the complainants are hike and so the extra bill is issued to them. The Ist complainant is examined as PW1 and he deposed that the consumers contributed Rs.4,000/- for fitting a valve in their area, in the Water Authority pipe line, with the help of Panchayath for getting regular water supply to them. After that the water supply is regular. 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and he deposed that the water authority is not taking the meter reading regularly within six months, because of the shortage of the staff. So they are not able to write the meter reading in the consumer personal ledger regularly. It is seen from Ext.R1 produced by opposite party that the meter reading is not taking even within the period of 2 years. So we think that Ext.R1 is not a reliable document in calculating the upto date monthly meter reading. Ext.R2 is also an incomplete document. The monthly quantity consumed by the consumer is not at all written in both documents. Only one reading is written for entire 2 years in Ext.R1. So the extra bill calculated on the basis of Exts.R1 and R2 cannot be counted as a fair one. Fine is charged in every month as Rs.5/- from 1/2006 onwards. The opposite party is not issuing the monthly bill to the consumers for their consumption. So the fine calculated for monthly nonpayment is also not reasonable. So we think it is not proper to believe the authenticity of Exts.R1 and R2. It is also admitted by opposite party by written version that they were not able to supply water regularly from June 2006 onwards. The additional bill is calculated from the time of January 2006 onwards to July 2007. Even in the time when the supply was not proper. So we think it is fit to refund the additional bill paid by the Ist complainant in the opposite party's office. It is admitted by the complainants that they are getting regular water supply after filing the complaint. So no direction is needed for giving regular water supply. In the result, the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund the additional bill paid by the Ist complainant in the opposite party's office from the month of June 2006 and also Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition, within one month from the date of this petition.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 23rd day of July, 2008
Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/- SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
Sd/- SMT.BINDUSOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX Depositions On the side of Complainant: PW1 - K.K.Vasu
On the side of opposite parties :
DW1 - E.R.Mohanan
Exhibits
On the side of Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Building Tax Receipt of Ist complainant's house Ext.P2 - Provisional Invoice Card Ext.P3 - Receipt dated 9.01.2006 for Rs.264/- issued by the opposite party Ext.P4 - Receipt dated 21.07.2007 for Rs.628/- & Receipt dated 27.10.2007 for Rs.185/- issued by the opposite party Ext.P5 - Photocopy of Provisional Invoice Card Ext.P6 - Provisional Invoice Card of 2nd complainant Ext.P7 - Photocopy of Mass petition filed before the Hon'ble Irrigation Minister, by 32 consumers
On the side of opposite parties :
Ext.R1 - True copy of Consumer Personal Ledger in respect of Mary Chacko Ext.R2 - True copy of Consumer Personal Ledger in respect of Thomas Mathew
| 
