BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 102/2007 Filed on 02./04/2007

Dated: 31..07..2010

Complainant:

K. Madhavan Nair, LOTUS, Venkulam, Edava – 695 311

(Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Executive Engineer, KWA., Attingal.

   (By Adv. P. Dileepkhan)

This O.P having been heard on 18..02..2010, the Forum on 31..07..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, the complainant is the consumer of drinking water supplied by opposite parties vide consumer No. EP/484 under Edava Water Supply Scheme, that he was not getting water in the summer season, that when complained the opposite parties pointed out there was voltage drops, water scarcity at the pumping point etc....but no remedial action was taken by opposite parties, that when water supply under Vamanapuram Water Supply Scheme extended to Karunilakkodu he requested opposite parties to inter-connect the newly extended scheme and the existing Edava Water Supply Scheme, which was not considered by opposite parties instead he was advised by opposite parties to take alternative connection from the far away Vamanapuram Supply point at Karunilakkodu, thereby he was forced to take connection from the said new scheme jointly with another consumer by spending about Rs. 10,000/- thereby he was incurred additional spending which was due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay adequate compensation and cost to the complainant.

2. Opposite parties filed version contending that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.EP 484/D, that complainant got water even in the summer season, that there was no complaint from any other consumers, who had taken connection from Edava Water Supply Scheme, that there was a scheme to complete Edava Water Tank by March 2006 and thereafter to lay pipe line connecting Reghunathapuram Water Tank and Edava Water Tank to tackle the water scarcity, that the said project was cancelled due to the failure of the contractor to complete the work of Edava Water Tank and cancellation of the tender work to connect the Reghunathapuram Tank and Edava Tank by pipe lines, that Executive Engineer inspected the site on request of the complainant to extend the Municipal pipe line upto his house, that it was found that already there is a pipeline in his place from Edave Water Tank and extension of Minicipal pipeline by around 200 meters upto his house would incur huge cost which opposite party could not bear, that complainant sought alternative connection which was allowed for which the law states that the consumer shall bear the cost of any extension beyond 30 metres. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

    

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P4. In rebuttal, opposite parties have marked Exts. D1 to D4. Complainant has been cross examined by opposite parties.

4. Points (i) & (ii) : Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of drinking water supplied by the opposite parties vide consumer No. EP/484 under Edava Water Supply Scheme. The main allegation in the complaint is that he is not getting water in the summer season, despite repeated complaints, that though water supply under Vamanapuram Water Supply Scheme was extended to Karunilakkodu, his request to inter connect the newly extended Vamanapuram Water Supply Scheme and the existing Edava Water Supply Scheme was not considered by opposite parties, that he was advised by opposite parties to take alternative connection from the far away Vamanapuram Supply point at Karunilakkodu, thereby on 16/3/2007 he was forced to take connection from the said new scheme jointly with another consumer by spending about Rs. 10,000/-. It is the specific case of the complainant that had opposite parties taken, prompt action on his complaints, he would not have incurred additional spending. Ext. P1 is the copy of the Provisional Invoice Card issued to consumer No. EP 484 under Water Supply Sub Division, Varkala. Ext. P2 is the copy of the payment schedule. Ext. P3 is the copy of the receipt dated 20/2/2007 for Rs. 320/- towards water charges issued by opposite parties. Ext. P4 is the copy of the receipt dated 14/3/2007 for Rs. 115/- towards alternation fees. Along with the complaint, complainant has produced copies of complaints addressed to 1^st opposite party, Chief Engineer and the President, Edava Panchayat which are in the records. Complainant has been cross examined by opposite parties. In his cross examination he admitted that his house is situated at an elevated place. In his cross examination on disclosure of the names of nearby consumers like Rajamma, Thekkepoika, Venkulam (EP 993/B), Raveendran Nair, Sankar Nivas (EP 630/B), Kesavan Pillai, Jayasree Nivas and Sumangala, who get water from the said scheme, complainant has deposed that they may get water from the said scheme but it does not mean that he gets water from the said scheme. Opposite parties have produced Exts. D1 to D4. Ext. D1 is the consumer's meter card to consumer No. EP 630. Ext. D2 is the copy of the meter reading card issued to consumer No. 95/91. Ext. D3 is the copy of the meter reading card issued to consumer No.147. Ext. D4 is the copy of the meter reading card issued to consumer No.EP 241/91. On perusal of Exts D1 to D4, it is seen that the said consumers got water from the opposite parties during the disputed period. It is the say of the opposite parties that there is no complaints from other consumers who had taken connection from the Edava Water Supply Scheme. It is contended by opposite parties that firstly, there was a tank to complete Edava Water Tank by March 2006 thereafter to lay pipe line connecting Reghunathapuram water tank and Edava Water Tank to take the water scarcity. It is further contended by opposite parties that the aforesaid project was cancelled due to failure of the contractor to complete the work of Edava Water Tank and cancellation of the tender work to connect the Reghunathapuram Tank and Edava Tank by pipe lines. It is contended by opposite parties that on request of the complainant to extend the Municipal pipe line upto his house, Executive Engineer inspected the site and found that already there is a pipeline in his place from Edave Water Tank and extension of Minicipal pipeline by around 200 meter upto his house would incur huge cost which opposite party could not bear. In this context, it is worthwhile to mention section 38 of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act. Section 38 of the Act reads as under:

38: Supply of water by the Authority

(1) The Authority shall on application made in that behalf by the owner or occupier of any premises, grant supply of water for domestic purposes for

a) any premises situated within a distance of thirty meters from the existing main or

b) any premises situated beyond a distance of thirty meters from an existing main, if the applicant undertakes to bear the cost of extension beyond the distance of thirty meters

(2) In cases falling under clause (b) of Sub section (1), the Authority shall bear the cost of extension only in respect of so much distance not exceeding thirty meters as is sufficient to connect the nearest existing main with the outer limit of the premises.

It is pertinent to point out that the interconnection between Edava Panchayat Supply line and Vamanapuram Water Supply Scheme is a policy matter of the opposite parties. It is argued by opposite parties that the said scheme did not come into effect. Complainant did not produce consumer premises meter card to show the pattern of meter reading to assess the availability of water in his connection, that his house is situated at an elevated area. Further, as regards alternative connection from about 200 meter away from the residence of the complainant the law states that consumer shall bear the cost of any extension beyond 30 meters. Those who are ready to bear the said cost, opposite parties may, on application made in that behalf, grant supply of water. Admittedly, opposite parties granted permission to complainant to take alternative connection. In view of the foregoing discussions and of the evidence available on records we find there is nothing to attribute any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Complaint has no merits at all which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31^st day of July, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

C.C.No. 102/2007

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : K. Madhavan Nair

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of Provisional Invoice Card

P2 : " Payment Schedule

P3 : " receipt dated 20/2/2007

P4 : " receipt dated 14/3/2007

III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Copy of Consumer's Meter Card

D2 : " Meter Reading Card

D3 : " Meter Reading Card

D4 : " Consumer's Meter Card

PRESIDENT