DATE OF FILING :04.06.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.106/2010
Between
Complainant : Santha Haridas W/o Haridas,
Thottapurathu House,
Kumaramangalam P.O,
Areekkara,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: K.P.Anu)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,
Kumaramangalam Grama Panchayath,
Kumaramangalam P.O,
Thodupuzha, Idukki District.
(By Advs: Jose Mathew & K.J.Thomas)
2. M.C.John, President,
Kothanathandu – Uriyirikkunnu Drinking Water Project,
Manchappallil House,
Malikappadi, Ezhalloor P.O,
Thodupuzha.
(By Adv: V.C.Sebastian)
3. Baiju S/o Chacko, Secretary,
Kothanathandu – Uriyirikkunnu Drinking Water Project,
Vallimachakunnel House,
Areekkara, Kumaramangalam,
Thodupuzha.
(By Adv: V.C.Sebastian)
4. The Secretary,
Idukki District Panchayath,
Painavu P.O,
Kuyilimala, Idukki District.
(By Adv: Joseph Pathalil)
O R D E R
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant is a member of the Kothanathandu – Uriyirikunnu Drinking Water Scheme in which the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are the President and Secretary respectively. In the year 2007, the husband of the complainant provided 1 cent of land in Survey No.398/4-2 of Kumaramangalam village with free of cost for constructing a tank for the said Drinking Water Scheme. At the time of giving the said property for the construction of the tank, the opposite parties were offered drinking water pipe connection to the complainant directly from the tank and the complainant and his family were using the same from 2008 onwards. The opposite parties were also agreed to supply free water connection to the complainant from that day onwards. The complainant is using water connection from the scheme without any interruption. But on 2.06.2010, the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties tried to disconnect the water connection of the complainant. So this petition is filed for directing the opposite parties for retaining the water connection of the complainant as per the agreement that the complainant will be provided free water connection and also directly from the main tank because the complainant has provided 1 cent of land for constructing the water tank, which worth Rs.75,000/- as market value at that time.
2. As per the written version filed by the Ist opposite party, it is admitted that a drinking water project was started by the aid of the District Panchayath and the complainant is a consumer of the said scheme, which was constructed in Ward No.XI of Kumaramangalam Grama Panchayath. The husband of the complainant provided 1 cent land for the construction of the tank with free of cost and it was not given to the Grama Panchayath, Kumaramangalam. The Kumaramangalam Grama Panchayath is not having any relation with the construction or day-today activities of the drinking water scheme. The said scheme was handed over to the subscribers by the District Panchayath. The District Panchayath directly constructed the tank and the project was handed over to the committee of the subscribers of the drinking water project. No way the Ist opposite party is connected with the related scheme or the activities of the scheme. The land was provided by the complainant with free of cost to the District Panchayath only. Nothing was entered in the register of Kumaramangalam Grama Panchayath about the scheme. So the Ist opposite party is not in anyway related with the case.
3. As per the written version of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, they are admitted that the complainant is availing water connection from the Kothanathandu – Uriyirikunnu Drinking Water Scheme. The opposite parties are not charging any amount from the complainant for the water connection, but the maintenance cost of the water connection is entitled to pay by the complainant. The opposite parties never tried to disconnect the water connection of the complainant. The opposite parties are not aware of the rate of the market value of the property which was provided by the complainant for constructing the tank. The water connection was given to the complainant as per the decision of the committee in which the complainant's husband is also a member. The decisions were written in the Minutes Book dated 30.10.2008. The husband of the complainant was also signed in the Minutes Book. The opposite party received only Rs.500/-from the complainant as per the maintenance share of the scheme. A Charitable Trust is created for the day today activities of the drinking water scheme and it is going on as per the bye-laws of the society. All the decisions were written down in the Minutes Book provided for the same. The water stored in the main tank are supplied to the consumers by a pipe having 1 ½ inch radius and the consumers are getting water connection by providing a pipe of ½ inch radius. A valve is also fitted in the main pipe. The water supply is provided to the consumers by the control of the valve and water is provided for a fixed time. The connection of the complainant was provided before the valve fixed in the main water pipe. So the complainant was getting water at every time without the control of the valve. The other consumers are getting water while the valve opens for a fixed period ie, only for one hour in the morning. Now-a-days the opposite parties are providing the same for 1 ½ hours. So the complainant is not having any control in the usage of water and so they are utilising water at every time, misused the water for several activities. So it makes scarcity of water to the other consumers. It was intimated to the complainant several times. But there was no response from the part of the complainant. This matter was introduced in the committee dated 15.11.2009 in which the husband of the complainant was the President of the committee. On 30.03.2010 a public meeting was conducted, election was done and the President, Secretary were elected. As per the decision in the committee dated 7.05.2010 the complainant's connection was disconnected and it was provided after the main control valve and the Ist connection was given to the complainant after the main valve. But the complainant never complied the order of the committee and forcibly reinstated the connection before the main valve as before. So a complaint was given to the Thodupuzha police against the act of the complainant. The S. I of Police enquired about the matter and advised to take decision after calling a public meeting. So a public meeting was called and as per the 3rd decision in the public meeting, it is decided to reinstate the water connection of the complainant after the main valve as given to all the other consumers. But the complainant concealed the original facts and a petition has been filed before this Forum and a petition under Section 27(B) of the Consumer Protection Act was also filed for the same. The complainant is misusing the water connection by availing the same before the main control valve so it made scarcity of water to the persons who are residing in the distant area of the tank and this petition is filed by concealing the original facts.
4. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DWs 1 to 3 and Exts.R1 to R4 marked on the side of the opposite parties. A commissioner was appointed and the commission report is marked as Ext.C1.
6. The POINT :- The complainant deposed as PW1. The tax receipt of the property in the name of the complainant's husband marked as Ext.P1. PW1 was availing water connection without any payment from the original water tank before the control valve in the main pipe. Ext.P2(Series) are the photographs showing the same. A decision was taken by the committee of the drinking water scheme on 30.10.2008 in which it was decided to give free water supply to the husband of the complainant. The complainant and her husband are liable to pay the share for the maintenance of the water supply scheme. Copy of the decision marked as Ext.P3. The husband of PW1 was the President of the drinking water scheme. There were 15 members in the committee. PW1's residence is situated 20 meter near to the water tank. The water is providing in between 6 a.m and 8 a.m in the morning. PW1 and her family will get water without any interruption if the opposite party provides water connection before the control valve. PW1 was using the same water connection without any interruption from 2008 onwards. On 2.06.2010 the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties disconnected the water connection of the complainant. The property which was given for the construction of the tank worth more than Rs.75,000/-. The 2nd opposite party examined as DW1. DW1 is the President of the drinking water scheme. All activities of the drinking water scheme is done based on the bye-laws of the society and are recorded in the minutes book provided by them. The copy of the bye-law of the society marked as Ext.R1(series). The complainant was providing water connection before the control valve and the complainant was not having any control in taking water and she was able to take water at any time. The house of the complainant is very near to the water tank. But water was provided to the other consumers only for 1 hour, now it is extended to 1 ½ hours. Because of the misuse of water by the complainant, several times there was scarcity of water in the tank. Eventhough it was intimated to the complainant she never responded for the same, so a committee was called on 7.05.2010 and decided to provide water connection to the complainant after the main control valve as per the connection given to all other consumers. Ext.R3(series) is the copy of the Minutes Book dated 7.03.2010 in which it was decided to change the water connection of the complainant before the control valve to after the control valve fitted in the main pipe. But the complainant forcibly disconnected the same and connected to the same before. So a complaint was given to the Thodupuzha Police by the committee, copy of the same is marked as Ext.R4. The S.I of police advised the committee to take a decision by conducting a public meeting. An advocate commissioner was appointed to inspect the disputed water scheme and the commission report marked as Ext.C1. The Commissioner deposed as DW2. The commissioner connected the water connection of the complainant before and after the control valve and water filled in the main tank constructed. DW2 deposed that there is only minute decrease in force in the flow of water while the connection of the complainant was fitted after the control valve. DW3 is a person who is also a consumer of the same drinking water project and is also a committee member. All the activities of the committee are written in the Minutes Book and he also signed in the minutes book dated 7.03.2010. Five decisions were taken on that day. There was a mistake happened in the date written in the Minutes Book. The decision for changing the position of the complainant's connection was on 7.05.2010.. The date written in the minutes book is not correct. In the original book it is written as 7.04.2010. In Ext.R3(series) in page No.25, the date is written as 7.03.2010 and in the original book it is written as 7.04.2010. There is a difference in the original book and in the Ext.R3(series). As per DW3, the mistake in the minutes book was revealed after 10 to 15 days. The tank was fitted in a higher area. DW3 has availed the connection by using rubber hose from the pipe connected to the tank. If the tank is not filled with water, DW3 will not get water. DW3 is keeping another tank in his compound and water is collected from the main tank to his tank through a rubber hose. There is no complaint received from everybody stating that they are not getting sufficient water. The Minutes Book is keeping by the President himself.
7. As per Ext.C1 commission report, the Commissioner tested the water connection of the complainant by fitting the same after the control valve, when the tank was filled, and when it was tested it was revealed that the complainant was also getting drinking water. There was only minute decrease in force. When the tank was filled by ¼ of water, the persons namely K.P.Thomas, Krishnankutty and Vijayakumar situated 1 Km away from the tank who were not getting drinking water. The complainant's house is situated in the top most position of the drinking water project and in the same level of the water tank. Another person named Krishnankutty, Chozhankudiyil who is residing above the residence of the complainant.
8. As per the complainant, her husband provided 1 cent of land to the drinking water project with free of cost for constructing the water tank and it is admitted by the opposite parties. At the time of providing the same, it was agreed to provide free water connection to the complainant, Ext.P3(series) shows the same. The connection provided to the complainant was from the beginning of the main pipe before the control valve because the complainant's house was at the same level of the water tank and it was provided because the complainant's husband provided 1 cent of his property worth Rs.75,000/- to the District Panchayath for the construction of the tank. The complainant will not get drinking water properly if the connection is changed and fitted after the main control valve. The opposite party decided to change the same and tried to disconnect the complainant's water connection. As per the opposite party, it is agreed that the complainant was providing water connection before the control valve, in the earlier stage of the project, but there was no agreement given to the complainant while providing the land, that the water connection will be given before the control valve. They only agreed to provide free water connection at that time. The complainant was misusing the water to various purposes, so many consumers were not getting water and because of the complaints received from the other consumers, the opposite party decided to change the position of the water connection of the complainant before the control valve and fitted after the control valve. The decision was taken on a public meeting which was held on 7.03.2010. Ext.R3(series) is the copy of the same. But the complainant forcibly disconnected that connection and again reinstated the same before the control valve. So they filed a petition before the Thodupuzha police against the same, copy of the same is marked as Ext.R4.
9. As per the Ext.C1 commission report filed by the Commissioner, the complainant is having 50 cents of property in which there are 50 rubber plants, about 12 plantains and there is also a well situated in the compound of the complainant, it is having plenty of water. But it is reported by the commissioner that the Ist opposite party is having more than 3 acres of land and more than 400 plantains. As per the opposite party, several complaints were received by them against the misuse of water by the complainant. But there is no evidence produced before the Forum to show the same. As per DWs 1 and 3, no written complaints were received by them from any of the consumers of the project stating that the complainant is misusing water. As per the opposite party, a decision has been taken by the public meeting held by them and in which the complainant's water connection was disconnected and decided to change the position from before the main valve to after the main valve. DW1 deposed that the decision was taken on 7.05.2010. But Ext.R3(series), copy of the Minutes Book produced before the Forum by DW1, it is written that the decision taken for changing the water connection of the complainant was on 7.03.2010. But when the original minutes book was produced by DW1, as per the direction of the Forum, it is written that the decision of changing the complainant's water connection was taken on 7.04.2010 and there is a correction in the date mentioned in the original Minutes Book in the top and bottom of page 25. So we think that if a mistake has happened in writing the date of the Minutes Book, that is repeated in the top portion and bottom portion of the same page which is not at all believable. Evenif the date was corrected by the opposite party, they have produced the copy before the Forum with date 7.03.010. So the date mentioned in the original Minutes Book produced before the Forum and in the copy of Ext.R3(series) and also the date mentioned by DW1 before the Forum are quite different. The date deposed by DW1 is 7.05.2010. There is no corroboration of the evidence of the copy of the minutes book, original book and deposition of DW1. So the deposition of DW1 is not at all believable. As per the complainant and DW3, the Minutes Book is keeping by the President himself. The only reason for changing the position of the complainant's water connection is that the complainant is misusing water, so that so many consumers are not getting water. But there is no evidence produced by the opposite party to show that any complaint received from any of the consumers stating that the complainant is misusing water and the others are not receiving water. DW1 and DW3 deposed that there is no complaint received from any members by writing. As per the commission report and deposition of commissioner DW2, the complainant is having only 12 plantains, there is a well found in the compound of the complainant and there are plenty of water in that well. So we think that the version of the opposite party that the complainant is misusing water from the main water tank is not at all believable because the complainant is having a well which is full of water. There is no enmity proved by the opposite parties and the complainant or any of the committee members to file this complaint. As per the complainant his residence is on the same level of the water tank and he will get water only if the tank is full of water and if the connection is fitted before the original valve. On perusing the evidence we find gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party to obstruct the water connection of the complainant before the control valve because there is no evidence to show that the complainant is misusing the water connection. The complainant's husband has provided the property for constructing the water connection and they were using the water connection on that day onwards before the main valve in order to get water properly for them. So we think that if there is a dispute regarding the misuse of water, the opposite parties can provide water to the complainant for 1 hour for a day.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to provide water connection to the complainant from the Kothanathandu – Uriyirikunnu Drinking Water Scheme through the existing pipe in between the main water tank and the main control valve as per Ext.P2 photographs for one hour every day without any interruption. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
PW1 - Santha Haridas
On the side of Opposite Parties :
DW1 - M.C.John
DW2 - Lysha Sherif
DW3 - K.P.Thomas
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1 - Tax Receipt of the property of the complainant's husband Sri.Haridas
Ext.P2(series) - Photographs(4 Nos)
Ext.P3 - Photocopy of decision taken by the committee dated 30.10.2008
Ext.C1 - Commission Report
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Ext.R1(series) - Photocopy of Bye-law of the Society
Ext.R2(series) - Photocopy of Minutes of the meeting dated 30.10.2008
Ext.R3(series) - Photocopy of Minutes of the meeting dated 15.11.2009,30.03.2010, 07.03.2010 and 2.06.2010
Ext.R4 - Photocopy of complaint dated 24.05.2010 filed by the committee before the S.I of Police, Thodupuzha
