DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K.,Member
Date of filing: 09/07/2019
CC/193/2019
Sobhana, - Complainant
W/o. Narayanan kutty,
Santhi Nivas, Kulappulli P.O
Shornur, Ottapalam Taluk.
(By Adv. K.R.Santhosh Kumar)
Vs
1. Assistant Executive Engineer ,
Kerala Water Authority, Public Health
Sub Division, Shornur, Ottapalam Taluk.
2. Kerala Water Authority, Rep.by - Opposite Parties
Assistant Executive Engineer
Public Health Sub Division
Shornur, Ottapalam Taluk.
(By Adv. R.Gangadharan)
O R D E R
By Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
1. The complainant along with her son purchased a residential property along with water connection with consumer No.3373101506. The complainant and her son were using this water connection and paying water charges promptly. According to her, when the Water Authority workers were giving new connection to a house near her residence, the pipeline to her house was broken, disrupting water supply to her house.
When the complainant approached the opposite party, she was informed that water supply will be restored only if she was prepared to meet the expenditure for repairing the broken pipeline. She sent a legal notice to the opposite party on 16.04.2019 asking them to repair the pipelines and restore the water connection. But the opposite party did not respond positively. In their reply the opposite party took a stand that the repair of the pipeline is to be undertaken by the complainant as per Rules. While so, the opposite party disconnected the water. Another allegation of the complainant is that opposite party is delaying the transfer of water connection from the new of previous owner to name of her and her son.
The prayer in the complaint is for
1. Restoring the water connection in consumer No.3313101506
2. Compensation of Rs.50000/- for dereliction of duty and deficiency
in service
3. Rs. 10000/- towards cost.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties and their version was filed on 09.10.2019. The opposite party refused the allegation that the pipelines were damaged when the KWA workers were working on the main pipe line. If main pipeline is damaged, the water supply to all the houses would be affected, which has not happened here. Hence it is a clear indication that the damage is on the service line of her connection. Service line for a water connection starts from the point on the main line from a water connection is given to a consumer which is known as “FERRULE” . The main line passes through the properties owned by KWA or other public properties including roads. If there is a leak at ferrule, it is considered as a leak on the service line and all the repair works on the service line is the sole responsibility of the consumer and it has to be got done by a plumber licensed by KWA. Though a letter was issued on 06.04.2019 to the original consumer asking to complete the work before 13.04.2019, complainant came to the office of the opposite party and expressed her unwillingness to do so. Hence to avoid wastage of water and also to avoid contamination, water line was disconnected on 10.04.2019. Regarding the transfer of connection, the opposite party is ready to do the same provided that the complainant submit the application in the proper format along with ownership certificate from the Municipality and remitting the required fee. Hence there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party.
3. Complainant submitted the chief Affidavit on 27.01.2020 and documents were marked as Exts. A1-A6 an evidence on 26.11.2021. The opposite party also submitted proof affidavit and marked the documents as Exhibits B1-B3 on 26.11.2021.
4. Here the crux of the complaint is as to whether the complainant or the opposite parties have the responsibility to undertake the repair of the damaged pipeline as per Rules in the facts and circumstances of the case. None of the evidence marked here is sufficient to prove the point at which the pipe line is broken, in the absence of which the Commission is to unable to decide whose responsibility it is. The argument by the opposite party that the breakage is on the service line has not been disputed by the complainant with any cogent evidence. Further, the complainant has not sought appointment of a Commission to establish the averment that the breakage is on the main line.
Further the complainant has not produced any proof to show that she has submitted proper application to the opposite parties for the transfer of water connection to her name. Hence we find that the complainant has failed to prove her case
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of July, 2022
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member
Annexure
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Photocopy of sale deed bg no. 176/2019 dated 08.02.2019.
Ext. A2– Original demand and disconnection notice dated 18.03.2019.
Ext. A3– Original demand and disconnection notice dated 21.05.2019.
Ext. A4– Original receipt bg. No. 46013501 dated 18.03.2019.
Ext. A5-Copy of layers notice dated 16.04.2019 along with postal receipts and acknowledgment card
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Ext.B1-Photograph and CD
Ext.B2-Original of Undertaking signed by Babu Raj
Ext.B3-Dupicate notice dated 06.04.2019.
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL
Cost: Nil.
