Kerala

StateCommission

RP/14/28

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

TOMY J PARAYIL - Opp.Party(s)

ISSAC SAMUEL

29 Sep 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

REVISION PETITION NO.28/14

ORDER DATED : 29.09.2016

 

(Revision Petition filed against the order in CC. No.146/2014 on the file of CDRF, Kannur order dated : 28.05.2014)

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                         : MEMBER

 

REVISION PETITIONERS

1. The Assistant Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

Taliparambu Post,

Kannur District – 670 141

 

2. The Kerala Water Authority,

Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001

Rep.by its Chairman

 

(By Adv.Sri.Issac Samuel)

 

Vs

COUNTER REVISION PETITIONER

Tomy J Parayil,

S/o.Joseph,

Parayil House,

Karthikapuram Post,

Alakode (via)

Kannur District – 670 571

 

ORDER

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                Revision petitioners are the opposite parties in CC.No.146/2014 in the CDRF, Kannur. The counter petitioner / complainant availed drinking water connection from the revision petitioners. Alleging that the revision petitioners cut the supply line to the complainant’s house and stopped water supply to him and thereby committed deficiency in service, complainant approached the consumer forum. Along with the complaint IA.No.152/2014 was filed by the complainant for a mandatory direction to resume water supply to the complainant. As per the impugned order the consumer forum allowed the application and directed the revision petitioners to resume water supply to the house of the complainant within three days.

        2.     It is seen from the version of the opp.parties that due to maintenance of the main supply line, the revision petitioners had to stop supply of water to the particular area and not to the complaint alone. That apart due to upgradation work of the Taliparambu Coorgh border Road, the service line of the complainant was damaged by the PWD authorities. The revision petitioners had given timely information to all consumers including the complainant to rearrange the service line. But due to the failure of the complainant his service line was damaged during road upgradation work. So there was no deficiency in service on the part of the revision petitioners.

        3.     It is pertinent to mention that the disputed fact whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the revision petitioners can be decided by the consumer forum only after recording evidence. Here the consumer forum granted the relief sought in the complaint itself as per an interim mandatory order. In doing so the consumer forum acted illegally. It is a salutory principle that interim mandatory orders shall be passed only sparingly and not merely because it is asked for. In the circumstances, the revision petition is only to be allowed.

        In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order of CDRF, Kannur in IA.No.152/2014 in CC.No.146/2014 dated 28.05.2014 is set aside. The consumer forum shall dispose of CC.No.146/2014 after recording evidence in accordance with Law as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of records from this commission.

 

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

A.RADHA                         : MEMBER

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

REVISION PETITION NO.28/14

ORDER DATED : 29.09.2016

 

 

                                                                               BE/