BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.32/2010

Between

Complainants : 1. Jameena Bijoy,

Mattathil House,

Karimkunnam P.O,

Nellappara,

Idukki District.

2. Simon Chacko,

Oliyanickal House,

Karimkunnam P.O,

Nellappara,

Idukki District.

(Both by Adv: K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

P.H Sub Division,

Thodupuzha P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Advs: G.Premnath & M.M.Lissy) 2. The Executive Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

P.H Sub Division,

Thodupuzha P.O,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The Ist complainant is a consumer of the opposite party as Consumer No.KKM 114 for a domestic water connection from the opposite party. The father of the 2^nd complainant is also a consumer of the opposite party, Kerala Water Authority as consumer No.KKM 311 for domestic purpose. After the death of his father the 2^nd complainant is using the water connection for his daily activities. The opposite party is supplying water from a tank constructed at Nellappara to the complainants. Another water tank is constructed at Neekkippara to which water is daily pumping from the tank constructed in Nellappara. From the said tank, Water Authority is distributing water to consumers at Nellappara, Kodikuthi, Kurinji etc. The complainants are also residing in that locality. Water is stored in the water tank constructed at Nellappara in all seasons. But the opposite party deliberately obstructed the pipeline towards them. So the complainants are not getting drinking water through that pipe line. There is no other source of water for the complainants in that area after the month of October, November. The complainants are paying the water bills in every year as advance and so there is no dues of water charges to the complainants. People residing in Nellappara, Neekkippara, Kodikuthi etc. are obtaining water from the opposite party, but the complainants are not obtaining even though they are residing comparatively in a low range area than that area. Because of the scarcity of water, the complainants are collecting water from outside and paying Rs.300/- for 1000 litres of water in every 4^th day. Complainants filed complaint before the opposite party on 18.03.2009 and on 28.10.2009. But no action was taken by the opposite party. A mass petition filed by the complainant with 9 family members on 8.01.2009 to the opposite party. But nothing was done from the part of the opposite party for getting drinking water to their families. So this petition is filed for getting domestic drinking water without fail and also for compensation.

2. The opposite party filed a written version stating that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The opposite parties are the officials of Kerala Water Authority. If a complaint is to be filed against the officials of Kerala Water authority, the authority should be in the party array, as it is a legal person. In the present complaint authority is not impleaded as a party in the proceedings. The complaint is bad for the above legal deformity. The complainants are not the consumers of the opposite party. The alleged water connection No.KKM 114 and KKM 311 are not in the name of the complainants. The authority is not aware of the usage of any of the existing water connections by the complainants. If such usage is there that is unauthorised and illegal and is to be penalised as per the provisions of Kerala Water Authority(Water Supply) Regulations 1991. The authority is trying the level best to ensure the adequate supply of water through all the lines. The authority have not blocked any pipeline to prevent the water supply. Even if any scarcity of water that is not due to any wilful latches or negligence on the part of the authority. As the complainants are not the consumers of the authority, no water charges are collected from themselves. No complaints were filed by the complainants before the authority as alleged in the complaint. So the petition may 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 P8 marked on the side of the complainants. No oral evidence adduced by the opposite parties.

5. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for getting regular drinking water to the complainants from the domestic connection availed from the opposite party. The husband of the Ist complainant was examined as PW1. The consumer No.114 KKM is in the name of the complainant. Ext.P1 is the copy of the provisional invoice card distributed by the opposite party to PW1's wife. Bill for Rs.669/- issued by the opposite party on 18.03.2009 is also produced with Ext.P1. The 2^nd complainant is using water connection of the opposite party, which was obtained in the name of his father late Mr.Luka Chacko. The opposite parties are supplying water to the complainants from the tank constructed in Nellappara. From the same tank, water is supplying to another tank constructed in Neekkippara. So, always there is water in the tank constructed in Nellappara. But the opposite party deliberately blocked the pipeline in which water goes to the residential connection of the complainants. So PW1 and others are not obtaining water for a long time. The consumers residing in Nellappara are obtaining water eventhough PW1 and others are residing comparatively in a lower area than the others. Written complaint was given to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority by the wife of PW1 on 18.03.2009, which was received by the opposite party and acknowledged, which is marked as Ext.P3. The opposite parties are taking meter readings of the meter fitted in the premises of PW1. The consumer meter reading card of the Ist complainant is marked as Ext.P2. The complainant also filed a complaint before the Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Thodupuzha against the scarcity of water, copy of the same is marked as Ext.P4. No action was taken by the opposite party eventhough complaints were filed. PW1 and the persons residing there filed a mass petition to the Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Thodupuzha on 8.01.2010, copy of the same is marked as Ext.P5. The consumer's meter card in the name of the wife of PW1 is marked as Ext.P6. Exts.P7 and P8 are the postal AD cards received from the opposite party for the receipt of the complaints filed before the Executive Engineer. As per the written version and cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite party, the complainants are not the consumers of the opposite party, the complainants are using water illegally and which is to be penalised as per the provisions of Kerala Water Authority(Water Supply) Regulations 1991. Ext.P1 is the provisional invoice card issued to the Ist complainant and the receipt for payment of bill by the Ist complainant is also produced. But that is not challenged by the opposite party in anywhere. The copy of the Consumer's meter card is also produced by PW1, which is also in the name of the Ist complainant as No.KKM 114. So we think that the complainants are the consumers of the opposite party without any dispute. The petitioners filed several complaints before the opposite party for the non-supply of the drinking water to them. Copy of the complaint and postal AD Cards for the same also produced. Evenafter the same the opposite party never do anything for getting drinking water to the complainants. As per the opposite party they never obstructed the flow of water to the complainant's residence by fitting any valve as alleged in the complaint.

6. In Ext.P2, the consumer's meter card of the Ist complainant, the meter reading was taken on 28.04.2008 and on 22.09.2009. The consumption in the month of April is 43 Kilolitre and in the month of September is 25 Kilolitre. Ext.P6 is another consumer meter card of the Ist complainant in the month of March in which the consumption of water on 1.03.2010 is written as 2 kilolitres. That means there is no consumption of water by the complainant from the opposite parties. Ext.P1 is the copy of the bill issued to the Ist complainant by the opposite party dated 18.03.2009, which shows that she has paid Rs.669/- as water bill to the opposite party. So the opposite party is bound to supply drinking water to the complainant because they paid the water bill promptly. Exts.P6 and P2 meter cards shows that the meter reading was taken by the opposite party only after an interval of 1 ½ years. The first reading was taken on 28.04.2008 and the second reading was on 22.09.2009 and the third was taken on 1.03.2010. So the opposite party after giving water connection, not even taking the water meter reading of the consumers even within 6 months. So they were not able to know whether the consumers are receiving water to their residence. The people residing in Nellappara are obtaining water eventhough the complainants are not obtaining water, they are residing comparatively in a lower range area than Nellappara. PW1 deposed that the opposite party blocked the flow of water by fitting a valve in the pipeline going through the residence of the complainants. So they are not getting drinking water for a long period. It is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party. Evenafter paying the water bills regularly, they are not supplying drinking water to the consumers, who are not having any other source of water after the month of October. It is a negligence from the part of the opposite party that they are not even taking the meter reading regularly from the consumers. These matters are not disputed by the opposite party. The complainants are paying Rs.300/- for 1000 litres of water for their day-today needs. Several complaints were filed to the opposite party even mass petition for getting drinking water to the public. There is no evidence produced by the complainants to show that they are purchasing water by paying Rs.300/- for 1000 litres of water. As per the complainants, the opposite parties have fitted a valve in the pipeline goes to their residence. It is the duty of the opposite party to investigate whether any block to the drinking water connection of the public. So we think that the opposite parties should supply drinking water to the complainants regularly without any fail.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to supply drinking water in the domestic water connection of the complainants within 7 days. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2010

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainants :

PW1 - Bijoy Joseph

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainants:

Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Provisional Invoice Card of the Ist complainant with receipt of

water bill dated 18.03.2009 for Rs.669/-

Ext.P2 - Photocopy of Consumer's Meter Card in respect of Jameena Bijoy

Ext.P3 - Photocopy of Ist complainant's complaint letter dated 18.03.2009 addressed

to the Ist opposite party

Ext.P4 - Photocopy of Ist complainant's complaint letter dated 28.10.2009 addressed

to the 2nd opposite party

Ext.P5 - Photocopy of Mass Petition filed by the complainants and 7 others residing in

Nellappara before the 2^nd opposite party

Ext.P6 - Photocopy of Consumer's Meter Card in respect of Jameena Bijoy

Ext.P7 - AD Card

Ext.P8 - AD Card

On the side of Opposite Parties:

Nil