BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of September 2011
Filed on : 15/10/2010
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
C.C. No. 549/2010
Between
1. Thannickal DL Towers Apartment : Complainant
Owners Association rep. (parties-in-person)
by its Secretary,
V. Valsaraju, DL Towers,
Thannickal Junction,
Elamakkara P.O.,
Kochi-682 026.
2. T.J. Michael, Advocate,
President,
-do-
And
1. The Kerala Water Authority, : Opposite parties
Rep. by its Secretary, (By Adv. Jeemon John)
Jala Bhavan, Vellayambalam,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 033.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
Parimanom road, Kaloor,
Ernakulam.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainants is as follows:
The complainants are the Secretary and President respectively of Thannickal DL Towers Apartment Owners Association. There are six apartments in the said complex. Water connection is given by the opposite parties to the said apartments in common vide connection No. KL-48/3241/D. The supply of water to the apartments stopped completely since September 2010. The water supply done by the opposite parties is the only source of potable water to the apartments. Without supply of water life in the apartment is impossible. The complainants preferred complaints dated 11-09-2010 and 22-09-2010 about the non-supply of water. But no tangible action is seen to be taken for the resumption of water supply by the opposite parties and no reason is stated therefore. Thus the complainants are before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to provide sufficient water to the apartments and to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the cost of transportation of water and for the inconveniences suffered by them.
2. Version of the opposite parties.
The complainants are totally strangers to the opposite parties. The water connection stands in the name of V.S. Leni mary, David and Ramesh. So this complaint is not maintainable. On receipt of the representations from the complainants, the 2nd opposite party inspected the site and found that pressure of water in that area is very low. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Opposite parties request, to dismiss the complaint.
3. The 2nd complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the complainants. The report of the Advocate commissioner was marked as Ext. C1. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are
i. Whether the complainants are consumers under the provisions of CP Act.
ii. Whether the complainants are entitled to get potable water uninterruptedly?
iii. Whether the complainants are entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- from the opposite parties?
5. Point No. i. Since, complainants are being charged for the supply of water and their non payment for the same has not been repudiated. So they cannot be treated as non consumer as averred by the opposite parties.
6. Point No. ii. Non-supply or short supply of water would per se amount to deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties who are charging water supply at the apartment as stated. Thus the question for consideration is as to whether on facts the complainants have proved by evidence that there is non-supply of water to the premises of their flat. The opposite parties maintain that on inspection they found that pressure of water in the area of the complainants’ flat is very law. However no solution is forthcoming from the opposite parties to redress the primary grievance of the complainants which is contractually before them. The advocate commissioner appointed by this Forum in her Ext. C1 report stated that the complainants are not getting potable water through their water connection issued by the opposite parties.
7. According to the complainant they had promptly been getting water till September 2009. Thereafter the supply failed. During cross examination of the complainant the opposite party took a contention that if the pipe line were erected at a much lower level than the present line the complainants would have got sufficient water through the line. However there is no explanation forthcoming on the part of the opposite parties why such a shortfall was forthcoming but was not foreseen or when detected rectified. We cannot agree with the contention of the opposite parties especially so the opposite parties are contractually bound to maintain the pipe line to get sufficient potable water to the complainants where they explicably failed.
8. Compensation is not awarded since the complainants though have claimed that they have had to incur expenses to get potable water, they have not produced any evidence before this forum to that effect.
9. Matters averred argued observed and in the result considered to a sustainable effect calls for the considered decision of this Forum.
10In this case for reasons above stated we direct the opposite parties to lay the pipe line suggested and averred and not disputed by them as a solution to make available portable water to the complainants at the cost of the opposite parties.
The Above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of September 2011
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of letter dt. 11/09/2010
A2 : Copy of letter dt. 22/09/2010
A3 : Copy of Constitution cum by law of complaint
Association
A4 : Copy of receipt dt. 22/09/2010
C1 : Commission report.
(Marked subject o objection)
Opposite party’s Exhibits : Nil
Depositions:
PW1 : T.J. Michael
