KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. F A. 302/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 12-11-2009 PRESENT: SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER APPELLANT K.N. Pareeth, Kanjirakattukudiyil House, Pezhakkapilly P.O., Muvattupuzha. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Tom Joseph) Vs RESPONDENT The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Sub Division, Muvattupuzha. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. J. Krishnakumar) JUDGMENT SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 14th May 2007 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.No. 39/2007. The appellant herein preferred the complaint in CC 39/07 and the respondent was the opposite party therein. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not providing water supply to the premises of the complainant. Thus, the complainant filed the said complaint for directing the opposite party, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Sub Division, Muvattupuzha to provide water supply to the complainant with compensation and costs. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. He also contended that the complainant was a consumer of Kerala Water Authority; but from 14-06-2001 the complainant is getting water supply from Poyyali Water Supply Scheme constructed with the co-operation of the Beneficiary Committee of Poyyali area under Janakeeyasoothrana Padhathi of Paipra Grama Panchayat; that the said scheme was handed over to the Beneficiary Committee and that the distribution lines and accessories of Kerala Water Authority at Poyyali area have been handed over to the said Beneficiary Committee on 14-06-2001; that the arrears of water charges of Rs. 1,750/- was received from the complainant on 30-01-2007 and that the said water charges were received by mistake and that the opposite party is ready and willing to refund the said amount to the complainant. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint in CC 39/07. 2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and A1 to A3 documents were marked on his side. The opposite party, Assistant Executive Engineer was examined as DW1 and B1 to B5 documents were marked on the side of the opposite party. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dismissing the complaint in CC No. 39/07. Hence the present appeal by the complainant therein. 3. We heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that he is a consumer under Kerala Water Authority and that the opposite party, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority is bound to make effective water supply to the premises of the complainant who is a domestic consumer under the Kerala Water Authority. He also relied on A1 consumer bill and A2 receipt issued by Kerala Water Authority towards the arrears of water charges. Thus, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent/opposite party supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He relied on B1 to B5 documents and submitted that the complainant was well aware of the fact that Water Supply Scheme in Paipra Grama Panchayat with respect to Poyyali area was handed over to the Beneficiary Committee who is in charge of the Water Supply Scheme in that area with effect from 14-06-2001. It is further submitted that the complainant was also informed of the said fact and that he has been enjoying the water provided to his premises from the said Paipra Water Supply Scheme till 29-01-2007. Thus, the respondent/opposite party prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 4. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/opposite party in disconnecting the water supply to the premises of the complainant? 2. Whether the complaint preferred against the respondent/opposite party (Kerala Water Authority) can be entertained as a consumer dispute? 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below in CC No. 39/07? 5. Point Nos. 1 to 3: Admittedly, the appellant/complainant was a consumer of the water supply connection under the Kerala Water Authority. Ext.B1 to B5 and the oral testimony of DW1 would make it clear that the water supply in Poyyali area has been handed over to the Beneficiary Committee constituted under the leadership of the Paipra Grama Panchayat. It can be seen that Water Supply Schme in Poyyali area was handed over to the Beneficiary Committee constituted under Janakeeyasoothrana Padhathi and the said Water Supply Scheme is being managed by the aforesaid Beneficiary Committee with effect from 14-06-2001. The complainant was also informed of the said fact regarding the handing over of the Water Supply Scheme in Poyyali area to the aforesaid beneficiary committee. The testimony of the complainant as PW1 would make it abundantly clear that the complainant was also fully aware of this fact that the Water Supply Scheme in Poyyali area is being managed by the Beneficiary Committee constituted under Janakeeyasoothrana Samithi under the guidance of Paipra Grama Pachayat. Admittedly, Paipra area is under the territorial jurisdiction of Paipra Grama Panchayat. The complainant was also fully aware of the fact that he has been enjoying the water supply from the Poyyali Water Supply Scheme from 14-06-2001 till 29-01-2007. The evidence of PW1 would also show that the members of the Beneficiary Committee disconnected the water supply to the premises of the complainant; but the complainant by ignoring that fact approached the opposite party, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority and some how or other managed to pay the arrears of water charges covered by A1 bill and A2 receipt. The opposite party has categorically contented and deposed that the arrear of water charge was received from the complainant on 30-01-2007 and it was a mistake committed by the opposite party. DW1 has also expressed his readiness and willingness to refund the said amount to the complainant. Thus, the evidence on record would make it clear that at present the complainant is not a consumer under Kerala Water Authority and that the opposite party Kerala Water Authority is not in a position to provide water supply to the premises of the complainant. It would also established the fact that the water supply in Poyyali area is managed by the Beneficiary Committee constituted under Janakeeyasoothrana Padhathi under the control, guidance and supervision of Paipra Grama Panchayat. So, the complainant has to approach the Beneficiary Committee for getting water supply restored to his premises. 6. The available evidence and the circumstances of the case would show that the Beneficiary Committee who is having the control over the Water Supply Scheme in Poyyali area disconnected the water supply to the premises of the complainant due to the failure on the part of the complainant to pay the water charges. So, the complainant has to approach the Beneficiary Committee to get the water supply restored. He can very well get refund of the amount paid to the opposite party Kerala Water Authority by way of arrears of water charges and can be very well remit the same to the Beneficiary Committee who is in management of Water Supply Scheme in Paipra area. So, the Forum below has rightly dismissed the complaint in CC 39/07 filed against the respondent/opposite party. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below. These points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Sr. | 
