The case of the complainant is as follows.

            He had a domestic water connection from the 1st opposite party from 1996 onwards. He had remitted the water charges without any default. But from the last one year the complainant had not get any drop of water. However the neighbors would also get sufficient water from the very same water scheme of the 1st  opposite parties. So he had intimated the matter before the 1st opposite party as well as the Kumarakom Panchayath. He had suffered loss and hardships due to the deficiency in service and negligent act of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

 

            The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared and the 2^nd opposite party submitted that there was no allegation or reliefs sought against them. The complainant also admits that there was no reliefs sought against the 2^nd opposite party. hence opposite party 2 exonerated from the liability and party array.

 The 1^st opposite party appeared and filed their version contending as follows. It is admitted that the complainant has filed complaint before 1^st opposite party about non-availability of water. The 1^st opposite party had given a detailed reply to the complainant. The water to Kumarakon Panchayath was pumping from Enadi pumb house that was interrupted due to the construction of bunds in the paddy field. The matter was reported to the 2^nd opposite party and to the District Collector. Because of the interruption, water supply to Kumarakom Panchayath was decreased to 50%. Eventhough such was the situation, the Panchayath constructed 2 bridges on the main road and the construction damaged the distribution pipe of that area. It has seriously affected the water availability to the complainant. Due to this situation, 1^st opposite party advised the complainant to disconnect the water connection temporarily, till the situation changes. The existing system and pipe lines were of more than 35 years old and due to this there are so many leakages. The availability of water can be improved only through replacing the existing pipes. The Kerala Water authority has submitted estimate for replacing the pipes for approval. If the proposed estimate got approval the 1^st opposite party can replace the pipes and the complaint of the complainant can be rectified. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

            The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced marked as exhibits A1 to A3. The 1^st opposite party filed counter affidavit.

 

            Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that he had not get water for the last one year. According to him the neighbors would get sufficient water. He had remitted the water charges without any default. The 1st opposite party has taken a contention that the non-availability of water to the complainant was due to the construction of 2 bunds in the area. According to them there was no deficiency or negligent act from the side of 1st of  opposite party. More over the 1st opposite party admits that the water supply of the alleged area is  35 years old scheme. The new proposal was submitted before the authorities for approval. At the time of implementation of new scheme  complainant’s problem will be rectified. At present we do not find any deficiency in service or negligent act from the side of 1st opposite party. The non-availability of water is an admitted facts. However the complainant has not a case that the non-availability of water was due to the purposeful act of the opposite party. Hence we have no reasons to believe the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is disposed with the following directions.

 

 

 

 

1)      We direct the 1st opposite party not to demand any amount from the complainant till the availability of water.

2)      We direct the opposite party to expedite the new scheme early as possible without any delay.

3)      We direct the opposite party not to demand any dis-connection charge or re-connection charge from the complainant if the supply was given.

 

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

 

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

 

 

 

By Order,