DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of July 2013
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K. Member Date of Filing : 15/04/2013
(C.C.No.78/2013)
Abidha,
W/o.Sulaiman,
Karumathilpadam,
Vallanghi, Nenmmara - Complainant
(Party in Person)
V/s
1.Assistant Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority
P.H.Section Office,
Nenmmara
2.Assistant Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
Sub Divisional Office,
Chittur - Opposite parties
(By Adv.K.A.Stanly James)
O R D E R
By Smt.SEENA.H. PRESIDENT
Complainant is a consumer of opposite party vide consumer No.3669. The grievance of the complainant is that on 15/02/2013, opposite parties without any prior intimation or notice disconnected the water supply provided to the complainant. Complainant’s daughter after delivery was also there in the house at that time. Complainant daily spent Rs.300/- as kooli for availing water from outside. The act of opposite parties caused great hardship to the complainant especially as it was summer. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order for reconnection of water supply alongwith Rs.95,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite parties filed version contending the following:
Opposite parties admit that the complainant is domestic consumer. According to the opposite parties water supply was disconnected on account of misuse of water. Complainant has connected hose to the tap for filling water in the well situated in his compound. That was complained by the neighbour of the complainant and opposite parties has also taken notice of the same. From 15/12/12 to 15/02/13 complainant has used 71,000 litres of water. On the date of disconnection itself complainant has given a written letter to opposite party stating that he will not repeat the same. Opposite party is always ready to provide reconnection provided complainant pays the fine amount and application for reconnection alongwith the charges for the same. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective chief affidavits. Ext.A1 & A2 marked on the side of the complainant. No documentary evidence on the part of opposite parties.
Issues that arise for consideration are :-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Issues I & 2
The specific case of the complainant is that without any prior notice or intimation opposite parties disconnected the water supply provided to the complainant’s premises.
On the other hand opposite parties contented that water supply was disconnected on detection of unauthorized use of water supply. For two months from 15/12/12 to 15/02/13 complainant consumed 71,000 litres of water.
Heard complainant. Opposite parties was not present for hearing. Gone through the evidence on record. Complainant is a consumer of opposite party is an admitted fact. From the affidavit filed by the opposite parties, it is understood that Rs.2500/- is the fine amount imposed upon the complainant for unauthorized use. How this amount has been derived is not borne out by any documents. The Kerala Water Supply & Sewage Act 1986 specifically provide the provision to be followed by the officers in case of detection of unauthorized use.
Section 46(D)
Assessment of water charges in the case of unauthorized use –
(1) If on inspection of any place or premises or water meters or any
other devices or any record maintained by any person, the authorized officer of the Authority comes to the conclusion that any consumer is indulging in unauthorized use of water, he shall notwithstanding any criminal proceedings that may be taken against the consumer, provisionally asses to the best of his judgment the water charges payable on account of such unauthorized use of water.
(2) The order of provisional assessment shall be served to the consumer
in such manner, as may be provided by regulations.
(3) The consumer to whom a notice has been served under sub section (2)
shall be entitled to file objection, if any, against the provisional assessment before the authorized officer of the Authority who may, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to such consumer, pass a final order of assessment of the water charges payable by such consumer.
Opposite parties has no case that a provisional assessment bill was issued or complainant was provided opportunity to file objection prior to issuance of final bill. Opposite parties has bypassed the mandatory provision of the Act which is clearly deficiency in service on their part. Moreover there is no evidence to prove misuse of water.
In view of the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result complaint allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service alongwith refund of Rs.2500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) already deposited and Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceeding.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of July 2013.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Copy of lawyer notice sent to opposite parties by the complainant
dated 4/3/13
Ext.A2 – Copy of complaint letter addressed to SI of Police, Nenmara and its
reply
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Cost
Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
