IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

Tuesday the 7^th day of September, 2021.

                                      Filed on 09-07-2020

Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.153/2020

between

Complainant:-                                                              Opposite parties:-

Sri.Tom Mathew                                      1.      Assistant Executive Engineer

S/o Kurian Mathew                                           Kerala Water Authority

Choorakuttil House                                           P.H Sub Division, Edathua

Mithrakari P.O.                                                 

Alappuzha                                                 2.      Assistant Engineer

(Party in person)                                                Kerala Water Authority

                                                                             P.H Sub Division, Edathua

                                                                         (Adv.Sri.Joseph Mathew for opp.1&2)

O R D E R

SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

        Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-

        For the last 30 years complainant is a consumer of Kerala water authority having consumer No.127/ muttar.  However complainant is not getting even a drop of water through the pipeline of Kerala water authority for the last 7 years.  Inspite of several complaints and letters both ordinary as well as registered there is no action.

2.     Complainant is paying the water charges in advance for every 2 years.  The last payment was on 27.10.18 and the amount was Rs.1409/-.  It is up to the period of 31.12.2020.  Complainant requested to change the water connection through another line where there is water every time but it was denied and connection was given to two adjacent owners.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite parties filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-    

        The complaint is not maintainable.  The water authority had conducted inspection to the house connection of the complainant with consumer No.MUT/127/D and there is very less availability of water in the present line and the meter is not working.  There is scope of getting water if the connection is altered and given from 110 mm PVC line which is laid across a stream from the consumers premises.  According to the prevailing rules of Kerala water authority the consumer has to apply for alteration of house connection through a licensed plumber and remit the required alternation fees.  The allegation that water authority had rejected his plea for alteration of pipe line is baseless.  If the consumer submits an application as per existing rules in force it can be done.  The faulty meter also has to be replaced.  The consumer is not entitled for any compensation and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

4. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration :-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation for not getting water through the pipeline of opposite parties even after payment of water charges?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get connection through an alternate line as prayed for?
4. Reliefs and costs?

5.     Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 from the side of the opposite parties.

6.     Point Nos.1 to 3

7.     PW1 is the complainant in this case.  He filed an affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A3.

8.     RW1 is the 2^nd opposite party.  He filed an affidavit in tune with the version. 

9.     The case advanced by PW1, the complainant is that he is a consumer of Kerala water authority for the last 30 years.  He is remitting water charges in advance for a period of 2 years for the last 15 years.  The last payment of Rs.1409/- was on 27.10.18 and it is up to for a period of 31.12.20.  However for the last 7 years he is not getting even a drop of water. Inspite of several complaints his grievance was not redressed.  Though he requested for an alternate connection through another pipe line it was denied by the water authority.  Hence the complaint was filed.  In the version opposite party admitted that there was little water available in the present connection and the meter is faulty.  However if the complainant approaches them with application through a licensed plumber and pay requisite fees they are ready to provide alternate connection from another line which is having higher diameter.  The fact that PW1 is a consumer of water authority for the last 30 years is not in dispute.  Even in the version opposite parties admitted that there is little water in the present connection provided to the complainant.  However they were regular in collecting the water charges and the complainant was depositing in advance.  Ext.A1 will show that complainant paid an amount of Rs.1409/- to the Kerala water authority on 27.10.2018 for a period from  March 2018 to December 2020.  So it is crystal clear that inspite of collecting water charges water authority is not providing water.  Ext.A2 is a copy of letter dtd. 09.05.16 issued to the water authority requesting to change the connection but it appears that it evoked no response.  Finally on 08.08.19 Ext.A3 letter was sent to the Asst. Executive Engineer, Kerala water authority (OP.1) informing that they neglected to redress his grievances inspite of several requests.  By Ext.A3 letter he threatened 1^st opposite party that  he will file a complaint before this Commission for which also there was no response.    The cross examination of RW1, who is assistant engineer (OP.2) reveals that he has no knowledge about the case.  Though in the affidavit it is stated that complainant has not paid the water charge in cross examination he stated that it is to be verified.  He is not aware about Ext.A3 notice sent on 2019 contenting that during that time he was not there.  However in Ext.A3 there is an acknowledgment by the assistant engineer that the copy was received on 08.08.19.  Though RW1 stated that the meter is faulty he has not given any written information to PW1.  According to him PW1 was requested to change the connection for which also there is no documentary evidence.

10.   The evidence on record shows that inspite of receipt of advance water charges opposite party is not providing water to the complainant which is even admitted in the version.  If the opposite party cannot provide water that also after accepting the water charge in advance it is nothing but deficiency of service.  According to PW1 though he requested to change the water connection through another pipeline which is having more diameter it went into the deaf ears.  Inspite of issuance of Ext.A3 threatening letter that he will file a complaint before this Commission there was no proper action from the part of opposite parties.  Though RW1 stated that meter is faulty no written direction was given to change the same.  Similarly though it was contented by RW1 that they are ready to change the water connection if proper application is filed along with requisite fee for which also there is no document except the testimony of RW1.  So from the evidence on record it is pellucid that there was deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties for which complainant is entitled for compensation.  Further direction is to be given to the opposite party to give a connection through the pipeline which is having water supply on application along with payment of requisite fee.  At the time of hearing complainant submitted that he has already filed an application before the opposite parties for changing the line and it was pending for want of consent from the grama panchayat since the line has to be drawn crossing a stream.  Opposite party will expedite the connection  to the complainant from a water pipeline which is having water every time on proper application and payment of requisite fee.  These points are found accordingly.

11.   Point No.4

        In the result complaint is allowed in part.

1. Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) as compensation from the opposite parties for not providing water inspite of collection of water charges in advance.
2. Opposite parties will give connection to the complainant from the other pipeline which is having more diameter on proper application and payment of requisite fee.
3. Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand only) as cost from the opposite parties.  

The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 7^th day of September, 2021.

Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)

Sd/-Smt.Lekhamma C K (Member)

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                    -        Sri.Tom Mathew (Witness)

Ext.A1                -        Copy of receipt dtd.27.10.2018

Ext.A2                 -        Copy of letter dtd.09.05.2016

Ext.A3                -        Copy of letter sent to the Asst. Executive Engineer, Kerala Water

                                     Authority

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

RW1                             -        Sri.Ashok Kumar R (Witness)

 // True Copy //

To

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                         By Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Sa/-

Compared by:-