DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Thursday the 29th day of December, 2022
C.C. 170/2021
Complainant
Naseema. K. T,
D/o Mammad,
Punathil Poyil House,
Velliparamba P.O,
Kozhikode - 673008
(By Adv. Sri. A. Karunakaran)
Opposite Parties
- Musthafa,
Franchise, VIRON,
Pure water for health life,
Pantheerankavu P.O,
Kozhikode – 673019.
- Khadar,
Owner, Viron pure water for health life,
Near Mangalam daily,
Kallai P.O,
Kozhikode – 673003.
- Akram,
Owner, Viron pure water for health life,
Kallai P.O,
Kozhikode – 673003.
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant and her son are residing in a house which is in their possession as per a lease agreement. The house is situated in a wet land. There is a well situated in the property and they are using water from that well. On 21/01/2021 the landlord installed a filter of VIRON
Company as the water in the well was unclear. But after the installation of the filter, the complainant felt burning sensation and there was hair fall problem. When she contacted the opposite parties, they came after one month and poured 1.5 litre of chlorine in the equipment. Thereafter the burning sensation and fall of hair increased. On 10/03/2021 the water in the well was tested in CWRDM and everything was found normal. On the same day, the water in filter was tested and found that the turbidity and iron are not within the acceptable limit. There was smell of chemical in the water.
3. On 20/03/2021 she consulted the doctor in the Health Centre, Cheruppa for itching, hair fall, black marks on the body and burning sensation in the mouth. Since defects were found in the teeth, she took treatment in the Government Dental College, Kozhikode on 25/03/2021. She consulted Dr. Joy. P. Jacob at Kozhikode for acute stomach ache who conducted tests. Thereafter she took treatment in the Government Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. Endoscopy was advised and the result was Pangastritis and Rut positive.
4. On 02/04/2021 she preferred a complaint in the Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode. But no action was taken. Though she narrated her difficulties to the opposite parties, they did not pay any compensation. The reason for her disease and difficulties was the pouring of chlorine in the filter. Hence the complaint for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-
5. The opposite parties were set ex-parte.
6. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
(2). Reliefs and costs.
7. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A22 were marked.
8. Heard the complainant.
9. Point No 1 : The complainant has approached this Commission seeking compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the opposite parties for the reason that there was negligence and deficiency of service on their part. The specific allegation is that the opposite parties poured 1.5 litre of chlorine in the filter and as a result of using the water, the complainant had health problems and complications and she had to undergo treatment and the resultant sufferings.
10. In order to substantiate her case, the complainant got herself examined as PW1. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the lease deed. Ext A2 is the copy of the bill for having purchased the filter. Ext A3 is the test report. Exts A4 to A8 and A11 to A20 and A22 are the medical prescriptions and the bills. Ext A9 is the copy of the receipt and Ext A10 is the copy of the petition lodged in the police station. Ext A21 is the photo of the filter.
11. As already stated, the specific allegation of the complainant is that the pouring of 1.5 litre chlorine in the filter by the opposite parties was the reason for her ailments and suffering. On a careful consideration and scrutiny of the evidence in hand, we find that there is absolutely nothing to show that there is any nexus between the disease and sufferings of the complainant and the alleged excess presence of chlorine in the water. There is nothing to indicate that the complication the complainant had met was directly or indirectly caused by or arose out of ingestion of chlorinated water due to any latches or negligence on the part of the opposite parties. There is no finding in the medical records produced by the complainant that concentrated chlorinated water ingestion was the reason for her medical problems. None of the doctors who treated her was examined as a witness before this Commission. Ext A3 is the test result of the water sample taken from the filter and the well. In both the samples, PH was found to be less than acceptable limit and all other tested water quality parameters are found to be within the acceptable limits as per IS 10500:2012 - Drinking Water Specification -, except turbidity and iron. The case of the complainant that in the water sample taken from the filter alone, turbidity and iron was high does not appear to be correct. In both the test results of sample taken from the well and filter, the turbidity and iron was not within the acceptable limit. It is also important to note that the son of the complainant, who is using the same water, is not reported to have any such complications.
12. In a consumer case, the onus to prove negligence or deficiency of service is on the complainant. Without proof of deficiency, the opposite parties cannot be held liable. It is true that the opposite parties remained absent and did not contest the proceedings. But that does not automatically entitles the complainant to the reliefs sought for. It is for the complainant to prove her case by adducing satisfactory evidence in order to get the relief. In the instant case, there is no proof of any negligence or deficiency of service and consequently the complaint must fail.
13. Point No.2: In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to claim and get any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 29th day of December, 2022.
Date of Filing: 21/10/2021.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of the lease deed.
Ext. A2 – Copy of the bill dated 21/01/2021.
Ext. A3 – Copy of the test report.
Ext. A4 - Copy of the OP ticket (Medical college health unit cheruppa).
Ext. A5 - Copy of the case record (MCH,Kozhikode).
Ext. A6 – Medical test report (Jacob diagnosis centre).
Ext. A7 – Copy of the pharmacy bill.
Ext. A8 – Copy of the pharmacy bill.
Ext. A9 – Copy of the receipt.
Ext. A10 – Copy of the petition lodged in the police station.
Ext. A11 – Copy of the pharmacy bill.
Ext. A12 – Copy of the bill (MCH, Kozhikode ).
Ext. A13 – Copy of the pharmacy bill.
Ext. A14 – Copy of the pharmacy bill.
Ext. A15 – Copy of the pharmacy bill.
Ext. A16 – Copy of the UGI Endoscopy result (MCH, Kozhikode).
Ext. A17 – Copy of the pharmacy bill.
Ext. A18 – Copy of the pharmacy bill.
Ext. A19 – Copy of the pharmacy bill.
Ext. A20 – Copy of the pharmacy bill.
Ext. A21 – Photo of the filter.
Ext. A22 – Copy of the OP ticket (Dr. Joy. P. Jacob).
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Naseema. K. T (Complainant).
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
