DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 27^th day of February, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.76/2007

K.Kamalam,

W/o.Ramachandran,

kunninmel Laksham \veedu,

Mundaya,

Ganeshgiri.P.O,

Shoranur, Palakkad. - Complainant

Vs

The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Water Authority,

Shoranur, Palakkad. - Opposite party

(By Adv.Raghu.K)

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

Complainant is a consumer of opposite party with consumer No.3634. She obtained water connection 4 years back. Thereafter connection was blocked by some anti social elements and the same has been complained to the opposite party. So far no action was taken by the opposite party with respect to the complaint and connection was also not rectified. Hence the complaint. Complainant claims Rs.20,000/- as compensation.

2. Opposite party filed version with the following contentions. Complaint is barred by limitation as evident from the statement of the complainant that she has obtained connection 4 years back and sine then she is not provided with water. The complainant is residing at a tail end of the place 'Mundaya'. Since it is a tail end, the residents of the place will receive water only at about 10 A.M. Complainant is a defaulter of payment of monthly charges. Arrears of 52 months is due to the opposite party. Complaint has been filed with an intention to escape from the said liability.

3. Evidence adduced consists of the proof affidavit of complainant and proof affidavit and Ext.B1 and B2 marked on the side of the opposite party.

4. The issues for consideration are;

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?

5. Issues 1 and 2: Complainant herself states that connection was obtained 4 years back and since then she is not getting water. Even though she complained about the same to the opposite party, no action was taken so far. The statement in the affidavit itself shows that the complaint is barred by limitation. Complaint itself is a vague one. Complainant has not mentioned in it the date on which she has obtained connection, date on which she has complained to the opposite party about her grievance etc. Further no document was marked on the side of the complainant to substantiate her claim. In our view complainant has miserably failed to prove a case in her favour.

6. In the result complaint dismissed. No order as to cost.

7. Pronounced in the open court on this 27^th day of February, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 – Photo copy of consumer personal ledger

Ext.B2 - Photo copy of Bill No.4372 dt.4/6/08

Cost (Not allowed)