By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:
This is a Complaint preferred under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Fact of the case:- The Complainant is running a hotel in the name and style of Arafa Hotel at Kainatty. He is running the hotel by using the water from the water connection vide No.KPT 1465/N and the Complainant has enjoyed the uninterrupted water supply up to 12.10.2018. But on 12.10.2018 evening the employees of the Opposite Party without any prior notice or information disconnected the water supply to the hotel run by the Complainant.
3. In fact there was water leakage for the water pipe laid through the nearby front main road and the Complainant has informed the aspect to the Opposite Party and the employees of the Opposite Party repaired the same. There was no leakage of water from the connection provided for this Complainant. But without any reason or prior notice the Opposite Party disconnected the water connection and by which the Complainant sustained huge mental agony by closing the hotel. Further he had to spend more than Rs.10,000/- for getting sufficient water to his hotel and he paid those amounts to the water tankers. Since the water supply is disconnected the Complainant is put to irreparable loss and injuries. Hence this complaint with the following prayers:-
4. To direct the Opposite Party to reconnect the water supply, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation, to pay Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and loss due to closing of hotel for two days and to pay cost of this Complaint.
5. Notice was served upon the Opposite Party who appeared and filed version.
6. Contents of version in brief:- This case is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Muhammed Kamal having a KWA water connection with the consumer No.KPT/1465/N. It is a Non Domestic connection taken from the KWA main line laying under the side of NH 212 in the name of M/s. Nima Hotel, not in the name M/s. Arafa Hotel. It shows that the consumer not changed the name of address of the Hotel. Compliant is regarding the disconnection of the water connection of the consumer. On inspection of the site on the side of NH 212 in front of the hotel, the maintenance person observed that some leaks were seen in the service pipe which has to be rectified by the consumer himself through the licensed plumber with the permission of NH authorities. This matter was informed to the consumer directly from office, many times before disconnecting the water connection. Besides, due to this leak, many complaints were received from the public and ward councillors. This was also informed to the consumer directly. But the consumer did not make any arrangements to rectify the repair work of his service line through licensed plumber and we got a complaint from NH authority over phone on 11.10.2018 to rectify the leaks. Hence the connection was disconnected. As per the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act 14 of 1986, in section 45 (g), it is clearly stated that the authorized person deputed by the Officer in charge has powers to cut any water connection without any information or prior notice. The clause is that "if by reason of any leakage in the service line or any other fittings or work, damage is caused to a public street and immediate prevention thereof if necessary". Hence the connection is disconnected by KWA. Moreover, the consumer is an irregularly payable consumer. At the time of disconnection on 12.10.2018, the consumer had pending arrears for Rs.2,839/- for 7 months. After disconnection, the consumer paid Rs.2,840/- on 27.10.2018. This is also one of the reasons for disconnection of the water connection. After this, the consumer paid only on 21.03.2019 and after the last payments, 8 months are left but the consumer did not pay water charges till now. It is understood that the consumer is an irregularly payable consumer. This is also one of the reasons for disconnection of water supply.
7. Proof affidavit was filed by the Complainant and the Opposite Party. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked from the side of the Complainant and he was examined as PW1. PW2 was also examined from the side of Complainant as witness. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked from the side of the Opposite Party and Sri. P. Prajeeshmon, Assistant Engineer was examined as OPW1 for the Opposite Party.
8. Considering the Complaint, version affidavits filed, documents marked and the oral depositions of PW1, PW2 and OPW1, Commission raised the following points for consideration.
- Whether there has been deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from
the side of the Opposite Parties?.
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed
for?.
9. Point No.1:- The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party without any reason or prior notice, disconnected the water connection to his hotel which caused mental agony and financial loss for which he seeks relief such as reconnection of water supply, compensation and cost etc. On the other hand the contentions of the Opposite Party are:-
On inspection of the site on the front side of the hotel on the NH 212,
the maintenance person observed some leakage in the service pipe
which had to be rectified by the consumer himself through a licensed
plumber with the permission of NH authorities.
(2) This matter was informed to the consumer directly from the office,
many times before disconnection.
(3) Many other complaints from the public /Ward Councilors were
received as to the water leakage.
(4) But the Consumer did not make any arrangements to rectify the
leakage in his service line.
5) On 11.10.2018, a complaint was receive from the NH authority over
phone.
(6) Hence, the connection of the Complainant was disconnected
(7) In section 45 (g) of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1986,
it is clearly stated that the authorized person deputed by the officer in
charge has powers to cut any water connection without any
information or prior notice, “if by reason of any leakage in the service
line or other fittings or work, damage is caused to a public street and
immediate prevention thereof if necessary” and hence the connection
was disconnected.
(8) Consumer is an irregularly paying consumer.
(9) At the time of disconnection, the Consumer had pending arrears for
Rs.2839/- and after disconnection the Consumer paid Rs.2,840/- on
27.10.2018. This was also one of the reason or disconnection etc.
10. From the facts of the case, it is evident that the Complainant had a water connection to his hotel, which was disconnected by the Opposite Party. To justify the disconnection, the Opposite Party rely on the one to nine reasons shown under para ‘6’ above. Section 44 (2) of Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act provides that “Whenever the Authority has reason to believe that as a result of defect in a service pipe or tap or other fitting or work connected therewith water is being wasted, the Authority may, by written notice require the Consumer to repair and make good the defect within such time as may be specified in the notice”. So as per the above section 44 (2) of the Act proper notice of disconnection to be served to the Consumer before disconnection. Here, the Complainant alleged that his water connection was disconnected without notice of disconnection and the Opposite Party has not produced any evidence to prove that proper notice was issued to the Complainant before disconnection. Section 44 (3) of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1986 stipulates that “If such repair is not carried out within the time specified, the Authority may without prejudice to any action against the Consumer under any other provision of this Act cause such repair to be made, and the cost of such repairs shall be realized from the consumer”. Here, the Complainant has contended that the water leakage was not in the service line between the main pipe on the NH and his water meter. The Opposite Party has admitted that the repair work was done on the pipe line on the NH in front of the Complainants hotel. Moreover, the Opposite Party has not charged any amount of repair from the Complainant. Therefore, the Opposite Party has failed to prove that the repair work was done in the service pipe line to the Complainant’s water connection to the hotel. To substantiate the contentions of the Opposite Party they rely on the provision contemplated under Section 45(1) (g) of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1986 which reads as follows. Section (45) Power to cut off water supply:- (1) The Authority may cut off the water supply from any premises :- (g) “if by reason of leakage in the service pipe or any tap or other fitting or work, damage is caused to a public street and immediate prevention thereof is necessary”. But it is mandatory to effect the disconnection of the water connection of the Consumer if needed only after complying the provision contemplated under Section 44 (2) of the Act. That is, only after serving proper written prior notice to the Consumer. Water is an essential commodity, without which nobody can survive. So, whatever may be the reason, denial of water is not admissible because disconnection of water supply by the Water Authority without giving prior notice will definitely cause much hardships, difficulties and irreparable damages to the Complainant. Therefore, an interim order was given in IA 181/2018 by the Commission in this Complaint. So, in this case, as the Opposite Party has failed to prove that (1) the repair work was done in the service pipe line to the water connection of the Complainant; (2) the repair charges were levied from the Complainant and (3) the disconnection was done with proper prior notice to the Complainant. Therefore, here as the reasons put forward by the Opposite Party are legally not sustaining the disconnection of water service connection of the Complainant is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party for which they are responsible and liable. Hence, Point No.1 is proved in favour of the Complainant.
11. Point No.2:- As point No1 is proved in favour of the Complainant, he is entitled to get compensation and cost as prayed for. As this Commission had already ordered to reconnect the water connection, in IA No.181/2018, now we do not issue any further relief in that regard.
In the result, the Complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is ordered to:-
- Pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant for deficiency in service/unfair trade practice
- Pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for mental agony and loss due to closing of hotel of the Complainant and
- Pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of this Complaint.
The above amounts shall be paid to the Complainant by the Opposite Party within one month from the date of this order, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22nd day of November 2022.
Date of Filing:-31.10.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Muhammed Kamal. Business.
PW2. Haja Hussain. Hotel.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Prajeeshmon. Assistant Engineer, KWA.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Demand and Disconnection Notice. Dt:25.09.2018.
A2. Photograph.
A3. Photograph.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
B1. Copy of Demand and Disconnection Notice. Dt:25.09.2018.
B2. Copy of complaint.
B3. Copy of Meter Reading.
B4. Copy of Demand Collection balance.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
