BINU BABY CHERPUKALLINGAL VEEDU, PALAKUZHA, ERANAKULAM Vs. KANAM MALA VIKASANA SAMITHY
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-6-9
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on June 24,2010

Binu Baby Cherpukallingal Veedu, Palakuzha, Eranakulam Appellant
VERSUS
Kanam Mala Vikasana Samithy Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE appellant is the complainant in CC.91/09 of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint therein was filed seeking for a direction to the 2nd opposite party to resume the water connection.
(2.) IT is the case of the complainant that he is a member of Kanam Mala Vikasana Samithy which was registered for the supply of drinking water and the members of the samithy decided to collect a sum of Rs.150/ - each from its beneficiaries to meet the expenses of the inauguration of the project and the complainant received a notice from the 1st opposite party stating that if he did not remit the contribution of Rs.150/ - together with the water charges for the month of 2006 December and 2007 January, his connection would be disconnected. Then the complainant asked the 2nd opposite party to furnish the income and expenditure account of the samithy. But he was reluctant to give the same and thereafter on 26.2.07, the water connection of the complainant was disconnected by the opposite party. Hence he filed the complaint before the Forum.
(3.) THE 1st opposite party filed version and contended that the complainant was a defaulter in paying water charges and hence they disconnected the water supply and if entire dues are cleared, the opposite parties are ready to restore the water connection. It is further submitted that the complainant is getting water from the Water Authority and he is also getting potable water from the well attached to his house. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant. He argued for the position that the appellant is entitled to get copy of all the documents of the samithy and the samithy is liable to furnish the same and there is presumption of misappropriation of funds and corruption by the opposite parties so that the opposite parties have not served the above said documents to the complainant. He further submitted that the appellant is ready to remit the amount if the opposite party furnish books of accounts and other documents and as per Ext.A1, the bylaws of samithy the opposite party is liable to keep bills, vouchers books of account etc. He further submitted that the opposite party have not responded to the application filed under the Right to Information Act. He alleged that the 1st opposite party had done malpractices in the work done by the samithy. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service by disconnecting the drinking water connection and also that the detailed accounts of works done by the samithy had not furnished to the complainant. Thus he canvassed for the position that the appeal is to be allowed, setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.