KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FA.234/06 JUDGMENT DATED.1.11.08 PRESENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER The Assistant Executive Engineer, P.H.Sub division, Kerala Water Authority, -- APPELLANT Kollam. (By Adv.V.S.Hareendranath) Vs. 1. Appukuttan pillai, Ajanthalayam, Mampallikunnam, Chethannoor P.O, Kollam. 2. Chairman, -- RESPONDENTS Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. 3. Assistant Engineer, P.H.Section, Kerala Water Authority, Chathannoor P.O,Kollam. JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER As per order dated.7.10.05 in OP.347/04 the CDRF, Kollam has directed the opposite parties to cancel Ext.P4 bill for Rs.30,757/- and to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and costs to the complainant. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties. The facts of the case in brief before the Forum are that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and he has been regularly remitting the charges. It is the case of the complainant that he was served with a bill for Rs.30,757/- on 6.8.03 alleging that the amount is towards the arrears of water charges for the period from 9.6.97 to 7.7.03. The complainant further alleges that he is not liable to pay the said amount and that the opposite parties had committed grave deficiency in service by issuing the bill. The opposite parties filed common version stating that the complainant had paid the minimum charges only up to 10/02 and thereafter he did not pay any amount. It was further submitted that the complainant was using the water for agricultural purpose also, which is against the rules. The provisional invoice card rates were arrived at on the basis of the meter readings from 2/03 and the complainant is liable to pay the said amounts. The further case of the opposite parties was that if the complainant had any grievance regarding the issue of the bill, he ought to have preferred an appeal before the Executive Engineer and in such a circumstance the complaint was premature also. However the opposite parties maintained the position that there was no deficiency in service on their part. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the complainant/respondent is liable to pay the amount of Rs.30,757/- (Ext.P4). The bill was issued for the additional consumption made by the consumer from 96-97 to 7.7.03. It was also argued that the complainant was not remitting any charges after the period from 10/02 and that the complainant was also unauthorizedly using the water for agricultural purpose. From 2/03 onwards the monthly consumption was raised to 92.1 KL per month based on the reading taken and the consumer was liable to pay the bill issued by the opposite parties. He also submitted before us that the Forum did not give sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence by the opposite parties to substantiate their case. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that the bill was issued based on the readings taken by the opposite parties. However, we do not find any material to support the case of the opposite parties/appellants that the bill was issued as per the contentions raised by the opposite parties. We also find that the opposite parties were not given sufficient opportunity to substantiate their case. We do find force in the arguments of the learned counsel that the water authority being a public sector undertaking should be given opportunity to prove their case by adducing evidence. More over the bill amount is also on the higher side. In the said circumstance, it is only proper that the matter be remitted back to the Forum for giving opportunity to the opposite parties/appellants to adduce evidence if any and contest the matter in accordance with them. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Forum for a fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the opposite parties to adduce evidence if any in support of their case. The complainant should also given notice by the Forum to appear before it and adduce evidence if any. The parties are directed to appear for the forum on 12.12.08. In the nature and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER S/L
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA ......................SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN ......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | |