PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 27th day of August 2012
Filed on : 24/09/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 504/2011
Between
Biju Paul, : Complainant
S/o. Paul, Choolakkal house, (party-in-person)
Thomson Bakery, Aluva-683 101.
And
Assistant Executive Engineer, : Opposite party
Kerala Water Authority, (By Adv. Jeemon John,
Public Health Division, M.D.V.Complex, Standing
Pipeline Road, Aluva. Counsel, Kerala Water
Authoriy)
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is conducting a bakery in the railway station road, Alwaye for earning his livelihood . The complainant is holding a water connection to the bakery. The said water connection was disconnected by the opposite party on 18-08-2011 without any notice. Due to the above conduct of the opposite party the complainant could not conduct the bakery from 18-08-2011 to 20-08-2011 and had to suffer a loss to the tune of Rs. 16,000/- and also to suffer mental agony and inconveniences. Complainant is entitled to get a total relief of Rs. 26,000/- from the opposite party. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:
The disputed water connection was issued to Thomas Stores & Bakery Alwaye under non domestic category. The opposite party received telephonic information from the public regarding leakage of huge quantity of water in front of the complainant’s bakery. Even though the water leakage had been noted by the complainant he did not intimate the same to the opposite party. On receipt of the intimation the opposite party rectified the leakage of water in order to avoid further wastage of potable water. On receipt of the letter from the complainant on 19-08-2011 the opposite party allowed him to pay the alteration charges and cleared the connection on the same day. The complainant has not suffered any loss as claimed by him. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1, A2 and B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite party respectively. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the learned counsel for the opposite party.
4. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 26,000/- from the opposite party or not.
5. According to the complainant on 18-08-2011 the opposite party disconnected his water connection to his bakery without issuing notice as mandated in Section 44 (2) of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1986. It is stated that due to the disconnection of the water connection he could not conduct the bakery from, 18-08-2011 to 20-08-2011. On the contrary the opposite party contended that they have issued Ext. B3 notice on 16-08-2011 intimating the complainant with regard to the misuse of water. The opposite party maintains that on 18-08-2011 the complainant submitted Ext. B2 application expressing his willingness to remit the expenses to rectify the defect in the service line and on 19-08-2011 the opposite party accorded sanction to do the same and on 20-08-2011 the plumber rectified the defect.
6. Admittedly as per Section 44 (2) service of notice is mandatory before effecting disconnection. The opposite party submitted a copy of notice purportedly issued to the complainant got it marked in evidence as Ext. B3. It is pertinent to note that the service of Ext. B3 notice as per Section 44 (2) as stated above does not find a place in the written version submitted by the opposite party. Had the opposite party served Ext. B3 notice to the complainant definitely that would have found a place in their written version. Moreover nothing is in black and white to prove the service of Ext. B3 to the complainant. The disconnection of water connection of the complainant without issuing notice amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Though the complainant contented that he is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 26,000/- nothing is forthcoming on his part to substantiate his claim of Rs. 26,000/-. In the absence of such evidence. In the absence of such evidence we are of the view that a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- is enough to meet the ends of justice adequately. It is made clear that the opposite party is at liberty to adjust any amounts due from the complainant towards water charge arrears if any from the relief granted in this order.
7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation for the reasons stated above.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of August 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Notice dt. 19-08-2011
A2 : Receipt dt. 20/08/2011
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Consumer ledger
dt. 18/10/2011
B2 : Copy of letter dt.18-08-2011
B3 : Copy of notice
dt. 16/08/2011
