Refusal to provide water connection based on alleged misuse of water, without sufficient evidence, amounts to deficiency in service under the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Amendment Act, 2008.

ORDER

K. Chandradas Nadar, Judicial Member - The appellant was the complainant in CC. 571/10 in the CDRF, Ernakulam. The complainant alleged that she submitted application for water connection with the opposite party but on 9.9.2010 notice was issued by the opposite party to remit Rs. 14,884 on the ground that water from the supply line was used for construction. She was told that if only the amount was remitted water connection would be given to her. She gave reply to the Assistant Executive Engineer of the opposite party stating that the reasons mentioned in the notice were not true. The complainant had in fact used water from bore well for the construction of her building. Water from the supply line of the opposite party is available only for a short duration. Even that water could be drawn only using hand pump. The opposite party is refusing to give water connection alleging false reasons. Hence she approached the Forum for a direction to the opposite party to give water connection to her.

2. The opposite party filed version and contended that the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. There is no agreement between the Kerala Water Authority and the complainant. No service was availed by her. The husband of the complainant was given water connection as Consumer No. 23/665(D) in respect of building bearing Door No. 23/997. The complainant demolished the said building in 2008 and constructed a new building without permission from the Kerala Water Authority. The original water connection to the old building was disconnected. The newly constructed house was umbered as 23/997(D). Sri Venugapal, who was the meter reader attached to the opposite party noticed the illegal water connection taken by the complainant. In order to prevent the illegal tapping of water from original connection, the meter reader went to the premises for disconnecting supply. Sri. Natarajan the husband of the complainant obstructed the meter reader from doing his duty and manhandled him. The case filed by the Kerala Water Authority before the Palluruthy Police Station was subsequently settled. Complainant filed application for new water connection on 22.5 2009. At the time of verification of the application by the complainant it was revealed that water from the old water connection bearing Consumer No. 23/665(D) in the same premises in the name of the husband of the complainant was used for constructing the building situated in the same premises. As such, as per Water Supply and Sewerage Amendment Act, 2008, the act of the complainant is punishable under Section 46 B of the Act. The opposite party issued letter dated 9.9.2010 to the complainant regarding this aspect and directed her to remit Rs. 14,884 including the water charges for 22 months at the rate of 20 Kls at the domestic rate which comes to Rs. 4884 and a fine of Rs. 10,000 as mentioned in the Act. The complainant has not remitted any amount or appeal before the Superintending Engineer. The officials of the opposite party were doing their duty on good faith to protect the interest of the opposite party. The water connection bearing Consumer No. 23/665(D) was disconnected for non-payment of water charges as per rules and the arrears are not paid till date. The application for new connection can be considered only after remitting the arrears due under the old connection. The complainant has suppressed material facts and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs.

3. Before the Forum the complainant gave evidence as PW1. Exts. A1 to A7 were marked on her side. One witness was examined on the side of the opposite party as DW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on their side. The Forum held that no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party was established and accordingly dismissed the complaint. Hence the appeal by the complainant.

4. The only point that arises for consideration is whether on the evidence available, deficiency in service on the par