Assistant Executive Engineer V/S Janatha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 1042, - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Pathanamthitta

72/05

Janatha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 1042, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Executive Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

20 Oct 2008

ORDER

Pathanamthitta
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ,Doctor's Lane Near General Hospital,Pathanamthitta,Kerala,Phone:04682223699
consumer case(CC) No. 72/05

Janatha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 1042,						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Assistant Executive Engineer Government of Kerala						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

O R D E R Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant M/s. Janatha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.No.1042 represented by its Secretary has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for a relief from the Forum. 2. The facts stated in the complaint are the following:- The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party having Con.No.97/ND/PRDM since from 18.7.1987 onwards. The opposite parties have not provided water to the complainant regularly so far. The complainant had sent several complaints in this regard from 7.1.1988 to 8.1.1997. But the opposite parties have not cared about the complaints and they have issued bills for the payment of water charges and the complainant had paid all the bills up to April, 1997. On 22.6.01, the opposite parties issued a bill for Rs.4,736/- for the water charges from May 1997 to July 2001. On getting the above said bill, the complainant had sent a letter dated 29.6.01 to the 1st opposite party stating that they are unable to pay the above said bill as they are not getting water properly and also requested to cancel the connection. Thereafter on 16.2.02 and 15.3.03, the 1st opposite party issued disconnection notice to the complainant. In response to the above said notices, the complainant had sent two reply notices on 21.2.02 and on 28.3.03 stating that they are not able to remit the bills, as the opposite parties are not providing water to the complainant. The complainant also demanded to refund the water charges remitted by them from 1992 to 1997. Without considering the complainants demand the 1st opposite party again issued bill for Rs.8,196/- for the water charges from May 1997 to January 2001. Again on 9.3.2005 a bill for Rs.9,754/- was also issued. On getting the above said bill also the complainant had sent a letter on 5.4.05. But without giving any notice, the 1st opposite party has disconnected the water connection of the complainant on 13.4.2005. The opposite parties have no right to issue any bills for water charges without providing water to the complainant. The complainant had taken the water connection believing that the opposite parties will provide water and they have spent about Rs.5,000/- for installing the storage tank and other plumbing works. The complainant has also compelled to spent Rs.18,250/- for collecting water from distant place for the use of the complainant. The acts of the opposite parties are clear deficiency of service, which caused numerous hardships and monitory losses to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the loss and damages caused to the complainant and also the complainant is entitled to get exonerated from the liabilities imposed by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint seeking the appropriate reliefs with costs and compensation under various heads. 3. For the 1st and 3rd opposite party, 1st opposite party has filed a common version raising the following contentions:- That this O.P is not maintainable either in law or on facts. They admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties. The allegation that the opposite parties are not providing water to the complainant is denied. The periodical meter a reading shows that water was supplied. They denied the allegation that they have never replied to the complaints of the complainant. They are compelled to disconnect the water connection because the complainant has not paid the water charges irrespective of the demands made by the opposite parties. The complainant has never raised any objection regarding the accuracy of the water meter. The consumer has not applied for disconnection of the connection in proper form and has not complied the formalities for the same. The water bills issued to the petitioner are true and proper. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service or negligence from the opposite parties and hence the opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount as compensation or damages to the complainant as claimed by the complainant. Therefore, they prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings,the points raised for consideration in this complaint are the following:- (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as against the opposite parties? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 5. The evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts.A1 to A12 on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant. The complainant was not cross-examined by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour. After closure of the evidence, the complainant alone was heard as the opposite parties are not present. 6. Point No.1:- The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and the dispute between the parties is with regard to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties. Therefore, this complaint is maintainable before this Forum. 7. Point No.2 & 3:- The complainants case is that he is a consumer of the 1st opposite party. After taking the water connection from the 1st opposite party, they have not provided water properly. This was intimated by the complainant several time but they are not prepared to take any action for the supply of water to the complainant. Even then they have issued bills for the payment of water charge. The complainant has paid the bills up to 1997. The complainant also demanded for the disconnection of the water connection as they are not getting water from the opposite parties and also they have intimated that they will not pay the bills without getting water. Irrespective of this, the 1st opposite party has issued bills for water charges demanding various amounts on various occasions from 1997-2005. The last such bill of the 1st opposite party was bill No.405 dated 9.3.05 for an amount of Rs.9,754/-. On getting the above said bill also the complainant sent a letter dated 5.4.05 stating their inability to pay the bill and also requested for the disconnection. Thereafter, the opposite party has disconnected the water connection of the complainant on 13.4.05. After filing this complaint, a Revenue Recovery notice dated 24.11.06 for an amount of Rs.11,176/- was also issued by the opposite party. All the actions of the opposite parties are illegal and they are not entitled to realize any amount to the complainant as water charges, as the opposite parties has not provided water to the complainant. The opposite parties are also liable to return the water charges collected by them and they are also liable to compensate the losses and damages caused due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties. 8. In order to prove the complainants case, the complainant has filed a proof affidavit along with 12 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant has been examined as PW1 and the document produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A12. The proof affidavit, the deposition and the exhibits are supporting the averments of the complainant. Ext.A1 is a copy of the letter-dated 1.9.1992 sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext.A2 is the Invoice card issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A3 is the bill dated 22.6.01 for Rs.4,736/- issued to the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A4 is a copy of the letter-dated 29.6.01 issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext.A5 is the disconnection notice dated 16.2.02 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A6 is a copy of the letter-dated 21.2.02 sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext.A7 is the disconnection notice dated 15.3.03 for water charge dues from 5/97 for Rs.8,996/- issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A8 is the notice dated 13.2.04 for Rs.8,196/- sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A9 is a copy of the letter-dated 23.2.2004 sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext.A10 is the bill dated 9.3.05 for Rs.9,754/- issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A11 is a copy of the letter-dated 5.4.05 issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext.A12 is notice dated 24.11.06 for Rs.11,176/- issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. 9. For the opposite parties 1 and 3 have filed a version. But they have not turned up for adducing any evidence to substantiate their contentions in the version. They have not even cross-examined the complainant. The main contention in the version is that they have provided water to the complainant regularly. Pumping of water had been regularly done through out the month except during the seasons when there has been shortage of water in the water source. They also contended that they have taken periodical meter reading of the complainant. The readings from 9/07 to 12/03 shows that the complainant had got water. So the allegation that they have not provided water is false. The complainant has not paid the water charges as per the bills issued by the opposite party due to the M.C. consequent to the non-payment of the bills they have disconnected the complainants water connection as per rules. So there is no deficiency from their part and they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint. But the opposite parties has not turned up to contradict the contentions of the complainant and to adduce any evidence to substantiate their contentions in the version. A bare statement in the version alone is not sufficient to substantiate the contentions of the opposite party. They have not submitted any documents supporting the version or challenging the contentions of the complainant. 10. In the absence of any evidence against the complainants case, the allegation of deficiency of service of the first and second opposite parties stands proved unchallenged. In the circumstances, the following orders passed by this Forum. (i) All recovery proceedings initiated by the opposite parties against the complainant is hereby set aside and the complainant is exonerated from all liabilities with regard to Ext.A10 bill dated 9.3.2005 issued by the first opposite party. (ii) The complainant is allowed to realise an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for the inconvenience caused to the complainant due to the deficiency of service of the first and second opposite parties along with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). (iii) All other prayers in the complaint are not allowable for want of evidence, hence dismissed. (iv) The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to the complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the interest for the awarded amount will follow at 9% per annum till whole payment Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20th day of October, 2008. Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : R. Reghunath. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Copy of letter dated 1.9.1992 sent by the Secretary, Janatha Service Co- operative Bank Ltd., V-Kottayam to the Asst. Executive Engineer, Water Authority, Pathanamthitta. A2 : Provisional Invoice Card. A3 : Bill dated 22.6.2001 for Rs.4,736/- issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. A4 : Copy of letter dated 29.6.2001 sent by the complainant to the first opposite party. A5 : Disconnection advice dated 16.2.2002 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. A6 : Copy of letter dated 21.2.2002 issued by the complainant to the first opposite party. A7 : Disconnection advice dated 15.3.2003 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. A8 : Notice dated 13.2.2004 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. A9 : Copy of letter dated 23.2.2004 sent by the complainant to the first opposite party. A10 : Bill dated 9.3.2005 for Rs.9,754/- issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. A11 : Copy of letter dated 5.4.2005 sent by the complainant to the first opposite party. A12 : Notice dated 24.4.2006 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.

O R D E R Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant M/s. Janatha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.No.1042 represented by its Secretary has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for a relief from the Forum. 2. The facts stated in the complaint are the following:- The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party having Con.No.97/ND/PRDM since from 18.7.1987 onwards. The opposite parties have not provided water to the complainant regularly so far. The complainant had sent several complaints in this regard from 7.1.1988 to 8.1.1997. But the opposite parties have not cared about the complaints and they have issued bills for the payment of water charges and the complainant had paid all the bills up to April, 1997. On 22.6.01, the opposite parties issued a bill for Rs.4,736/- for the water charges from May 1997 to July 2001. On getting the above said bill, the complainant had sent a letter dated 29.6.01 to the 1st opposite party stating that they are unable to pay the above said bill as they are not getting water properly and also requested to cancel the connection. Thereafter on 16.2.02 and 15.3.03, the 1st opposite party issued disconnection notice to the complainant. In response to the above said notices, the complainant had sent two reply notices on 21.2.02 and on 28.3.03 stating that they are not able to remit the bills, as the opposite parties are not providing water to the complainant. The complainant also demanded to refund the water charges remitted by them from 1992 to 1997. Without considering the complainants demand the 1st opposite party again issued bill for Rs.8,196/- for the water charges from May 1997 to January 2001. Again on 9.3.2005 a bill for Rs.9,754/- was also issued. On getting the above said bill also the complainant had sent a letter on 5.4.05. But without giving any notice, the 1st opposite party has disconnected the water connection of the complainant on 13.4.2005. The opposite parties have no right to issue any bills for water charges without providing water to the complainant. The complainant had taken the water connection believing that the opposite parties will provide water and they have spent about Rs.5,000/- for installing the storage tank and other plumbing works. The complainant has also compelled to spent Rs.18,250/- for collecting water from distant place for the use of the complainant. The acts of the opposite parties are clear deficiency of service, which caused numerous hardships and monitory losses to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to compensate the loss and damages caused to the complainant and also the complainant is entitled to get exonerated from the liabilities imposed by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint seeking the appropriate reliefs with costs and compensation under various heads. 3. For the 1st and 3rd opposite party, 1st opposite party has filed a common version raising the following contentions:- That this O.P is not maintainable either in law or on facts. They admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties. The allegation that the opposite parties are not providing water to the complainant is denied. The periodical meter a reading shows that water was supplied. They denied the allegation that they have never replied to the complaints of the complainant. They are compelled to disconnect the water connection because the complainant has not paid the water charges irrespective of the demands made by the opposite parties. The complainant has never raised any objection regarding the accuracy of the water meter. The consumer has not applied for disconnection of the connection in proper form and has not complied the formalities for the same. The water bills issued to the petitioner are true and proper. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service or negligence from the opposite parties and hence the opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount as compensation or damages to the complainant as claimed by the complainant. Therefore, they prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings,the points raised for consideration in this complaint are the following:- (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as against the opposite parties? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 5. The evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts.A1 to A12 on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant. The complainant was not cross-examined by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour. After closure of the evidence, the complainant alone was heard as the opposite parties are not present. 6. Point No.1:- The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and the dispute between the parties is with regard to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties. Therefore, this complaint is maintainable before this Forum. 7. Point No.2 & 3:- The complainants case is that he is a consumer of the 1st opposite party. After taking the water connection from the 1st opposite party, they have not provided water properly. This was intimated by the complainant several time but they are not prepared to take any action for the supply of water to the complainant. Even then they have issued bills for the payment of water charge. The complainant has paid the bills up to 1997. The complainant also demanded for the disconnection of the water connection as they are not getting water from the opposite parties and also they have intimated that they will not pay the bills without getting water. Irrespective of this, the 1st opposite party has issued bills for water charges demanding various amounts on various occasions from 1997-2005. The last such bill of the 1st opposite party was bill No.405 dated 9.3.05 for an amount of Rs.9,754/-. On getting the above said bill also the complainant sent a letter dated 5.4.05 stating their inability to pay the bill and also requested for the disconnection. Thereafter, the opposite party has disconnected the water connection of the complainant on 13.4.05. After filing this complaint, a Revenue Recovery notice dated 24.11.06 for an amount of Rs.11,176/- was also issued by the opposite party. All the actions of the opposite parties are illegal and they are not entitled to realize any amount to the complainant as water charges, as the opposite parties has not provided water to the complainant. The opposite parties are also liable to return the water charges collected by them and they are also liable to compensate the losses and damages caused due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties. 8. In order to prove the complainants case, the complainant has filed a proof affidavit along with 12 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant has been examined as PW1 and the document produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A12. The proof affidavit, the deposition and the exhibits are supporting the averments of the complainant. Ext.A1 is a copy of the letter-dated 1.9.1992 sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext.A2 is the Invoice card issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A3 is the bill dated 22.6.01 for Rs.4,736/- issued to the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A4 is a copy of the letter-dated 29.6.01 issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext.A5 is the disconnection notice dated 16.2.02 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A6 is a copy of the letter-dated 21.2.02 sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext.A7 is the disconnection notice dated 15.3.03 for water charge dues from 5/97 for Rs.8,996/- issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A8 is the notice dated 13.2.04 for Rs.8,196/- sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A9 is a copy of the letter-dated 23.2.2004 sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext.A10 is the bill dated 9.3.05 for Rs.9,754/- issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A11 is a copy of the letter-dated 5.4.05 issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext.A12 is notice dated 24.11.06 for Rs.11,176/- issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. 9. For the opposite parties 1 and 3 have filed a version. But they have not turned up for adducing any evidence to substantiate their contentions in the version. They have not even cross-examined the complainant. The main contention in the version is that they have provided water to the complainant regularly. Pumping of water had been regularly done through out the month except during the seasons when there has been shortage of water in the water source. They also contended that they have taken periodical meter reading of the complainant. The readings from 9/07 to 12/03 shows that the complainant had got water. So the allegation that they have not provided water is false. The complainant has not paid the water charges as per the bills issued by the opposite party due to the M.C. consequent to the non-payment of the bills they have disconnected the complainants water connection as per rules. So there is no deficiency from their part and they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint. But the opposite parties has not turned up to contradict the contentions of the complainant and to adduce any evidence to substantiate their contentions in the version. A bare statement in the version alone is not sufficient to substantiate the contentions of the opposite party. They have not submitted any documents supporting the version or challenging the contentions of the complainant. 10. In the absence of any evidence against the complainants case, the allegation of deficiency of service of the first and second opposite parties stands proved unchallenged. In the circumstances, the following orders passed by this Forum. (i) All recovery proceedings initiated by the opposite parties against the complainant is hereby set aside and the complainant is exonerated from all liabilities with regard to Ext.A10 bill dated 9.3.2005 issued by the first opposite party. (ii) The complainant is allowed to realise an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for the inconvenience caused to the complainant due to the deficiency of service of the first and second opposite parties along with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). (iii) All other prayers in the complaint are not allowable for want of evidence, hence dismissed. (iv) The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to the complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the interest for the awarded amount will follow at 9% per annum till whole payment Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20th day of October, 2008. Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : R. Reghunath. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Copy of letter dated 1.9.1992 sent by the Secretary, Janatha Service Co- operative Bank Ltd., V-Kottayam to the Asst. Executive Engineer, Water Authority, Pathanamthitta. A2 : Provisional Invoice Card. A3 : Bill dated 22.6.2001 for Rs.4,736/- issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. A4 : Copy of letter dated 29.6.2001 sent by the complainant to the first opposite party. A5 : Disconnection advice dated 16.2.2002 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. A6 : Copy of letter dated 21.2.2002 issued by the complainant to the first opposite party. A7 : Disconnection advice dated 15.3.2003 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. A8 : Notice dated 13.2.2004 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. A9 : Copy of letter dated 23.2.2004 sent by the complainant to the first opposite party. A10 : Bill dated 9.3.2005 for Rs.9,754/- issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. A11 : Copy of letter dated 5.4.2005 sent by the complainant to the first opposite party. A12 : Notice dated 24.4.2006 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.