D.O.F – 05-11-2011

D.O.O – 30-12-2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

                        Present:       Sri. Roy Paul                     :    President

                                           Smt. Sona Jayaraman K.  :    Member

                                           Sri. Babu Sebastian          :    Member

                      Dated this the 30^th  day of  December, 2014

C.C.No.328/2011

C.N. Chandramathi,

W/o. Sasidharan, ,                                      :        Complainant

‘Rahul’,

Near Municipal Bis Stand,

Kannur-1.

(Rep. by Adv. P.P. Venue)

Kerala Water Authority,

Represented Asst. Executive Engineer,     :      Opposite party

Thana,

Kannur-12.                                                     

( Rep. by Adv. S.J.Abraham)                                                               

O R D E R

Sri. Roy Paul, President

  This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against the opposite party for a direction to restore the water connection disconnected by them and also for a compensation of  Rs.25,000 and cost of the proceedings.

 The complainant’s case in brief is that:

 There was a case pending before this Forum as O.P. 347/03 between the complainant and opposite party and as per the order dated 26-02-2006 by  this Forum directed  the opposite party to pay total sum of  Rs.12,382 on various heads to the complainant, against the said order the opposite party preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Forum which stands dismissed on 14-12-09.  According to the complainant thereafter the opposite party was maintaining a hostile attitude towards the complainant by  inhumanly tortune and flouting all the right of the complainant as a consumer.  It is also pleaded that the opposite party has not complied the order of this Forum is O.P.347/2003 so far.  While so 24-10-11 the opposite party illegally disconnected the water connection of the complainant without any notice.  So there is  deficiency of  service  and unfair practice in the part of opposite party.  Hence the complaint.

          Along with the complainant an interim application bearing No. 435/11 was also filed for an interim order directing the  Respondent/O.P. to restore the water supply connection of the complainant.  After considering the facts and  circumstances of the case this Forum allowed the IA-435/11 directing the opposite party to restore the water connection on 04-11-11.  Anyhow the opposite party restored the connection only on 25-11-11 after  drastic steps taken against them.

          The opposite party has filed written version contending that the actual amount due from the complainant to the opposite party is   Rs.14,408 i.e for the period of 3/1992 to 3/2008 and after deducting the decree   amount in O.P.347/03 the balance  amount is Rs.2,026 i.e.(14,4408-12382).  It is also alleged that the complainant is a continuous defaulter in payment of water charges and after due notice the water connection disconnected on 24-10-11 as per the Rules and Regulations of K.W.A.  The opposite party denied the allegations leveled against them and they are not liable to pay any compensation.

On the basis of the contentions of the complainant and version the following issues are framed.

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service and unfair practice in the  part of   opposite  parties?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought  in the  complaint?
2. Relief and cost.

      The complainant’s husband was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 to A10 marked.  But the opposite party  failed to cross examine the PW1 even though ample opportunities were given.  Hence the case posted for the evidence of opposite party then also they have not adduced any evidence. Thus evidence closed and case taken for hearing to  12-06-14.  On that day the complainant argued her case and again posted for hearing to 16-7-14, 13-08-14, 17-09-14, 16-10-14 and finally to 19-11-14.  On all these days there was no representations for the opposite party  hence the matter taken for orders.

          The issue No.1 and 2 taken together for convenience.  On perusal  of the evidence of PW1 and as per Ext. A1 to A10, there are discrepancies and contradictions in the bills issued from the opposite party.  Though  ample opportunities  given to the opposite party for clarifications of the same they didn’t cared to do so either during the evidence or hearing stage of the case.  The PW1 adduced evidence according to the pleadings in the complaint.  According to him no amount was due towards the arrears of water charges to the opposite party.  It is also stated by the PW1 that the opposite party failed to pay the Decree amount ordered by the Forum in the earlier case  OP-347/03.  The contention in the version filed by the opposite party that the amount due from the complainant is for the period of 1992 to 2008 is a baseless allegation with an ill-motive to create confusion.  No documents are produced by the opposite party to prove that there is arrears of charges are in due from the complainant.  The opposite party absolutely failed to prove their contention in the version either by evidence or through documents.  There is  no  rebuttable evidence before the Forum from opposite party. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant approached this Forum with a genuine case due to the deficiency of service and unfair practice in the part of the opposite party.  The disconnection of the water connection by the opposite party is  highly illegal and against the facts and circumstances.  The complainant has every  right to get the water connection restored.  So the issue No.1 and 2 are found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.

          Regarding the issue No.3 about the  reliefs and cost.  Since the issue No. 1 and 2 are found in favour of the complainant.  The complainant is entitled for the reliefs to overcome the damages occurred by the act of the  opposite party in  a reasonable manner.  So we the Forum has no hesitation to grant the relief of a reasonable compensation and cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

          In the result the complaint is allowed, the opposite party is directed to restore the water connection of the complainant, and the opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,000(Rupees six thousand only)as compensation for deficiency of service and unfair practice and Rs.2,000(Rupees two thousand only) towards the litigation cost  to the complainant within  30 days of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at the liberty to execute the order as per the Provision of Consumer Protection Act.

             Dated this the 30^th day of December, 2014

                    Sd/-                      Sd/-                    Sd/-

                   President              Member               Member

                                       APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1- Order of the Hon’ble District Forum, Kannur dated 20-02-2006

A2- Copy of the Order the Hon’ble State Commission dated 14-12-2009

A3- Bill No. 6429  issued by KWA

A4- Bill No.6428 dated 31-10-2002 issued by KWA

A5- Bill No. 2081 dated 8-04-2003 issued by KWA

A6- Bill No. KWA/KNR/Apr/2008-18 dated 07-04-2008 issued by KWA

A7- Letter dated 26-05-2008 given by the complainant to the O.P

A8- Postal Acknowledgement dated 06-06-2008

A9- Bill No. 2082 dated 08-04-2003 issued by KWA

A10- Receipt of KWA

Exhibits for the opposite parties:

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1- Chief affidavit of B.G. Sasidharan

Witness examined for the opposite parties:

Nil

                                                                    //Forwarded by Order//

                                                                  SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT