D.O.F. 31-05-2018

                                                D.O.O. 30-09-2019

            IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:      Sri. Roy Paul                     :                President

                  Smt.Moly  Kutty Mathew  :                 Member

                          Dated this the 30^th day of September, 2019.

C.C.No.151/2018

Shafau Shukkoor,

Sabnam,

Near Manikkakavu,                                                      Complainant

Thana,

Kannur-12.

Assistant Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority, Thana,                                Opposite party

Kannur-12.

(Rep. by Adv. Rojas Sebastian)

O R D E R

Smt. Moly Kutty Mathew, Member

       This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 seeking direction against the opposite party to refund the bill amount already remitted from November, 2017 to 02-06-2018 in which there was no water supply and that amount remitted by the complainant before the opposite party.  

          The complainant submits that she is having consumer No. 3273/D of Kannur Municipality for water supply connection in domestic purpose.  Moreover the complainant states that she belong to senior citizen and a widow.  For the last 30 years the complainant using the water supply in Kannur Municipality. The opposite party had disconnected the complainants old pipe line water supply and installed a new pipe line connection to the neighbouring houses with their own expenses to an extend of 100 meter long pipes.

          The complainant states that from November 2017 to 02-06-2018 the opposite party discontinued water supply to the complainant and that period also she remitted the bill before the opposite party.  Alleging that the above said acts amounts to defective in service and unfair trade practice on the parts of the opposite party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint before the Forum, on 31-05-18 for re-installing the discontinued municipality water supply.  But on 04-07-18 the opposite party have re-installed the water supply on the same old pipe line which was denied earlier.

Rs.         After filing the complaint, notice was issued and that notice was duly served on the opposite party.  The opposite party had appeared before the Forum and states that on 04-07-18 to reinstate the water connection and the opposite party did not file any version on his behalf.  The opposite party has chosen to met to produce his version of the case inspite of granting time.  Ultimately the Forum had to hold that the opposite party have no version as such in this case came to be proceed against the opposite party ex-parte.

          Even though the opposite party remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish   the allegation made by her against the opposite party.  Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the Forum of affidavit and documents.  But the affidavit produced before the Forum to state some new pleading regarding the continuation of old pipe line  without any interruption instead of installing new one, and constructed new pipe line that also may be used instead of any interruption.  But no amendment petition filed for that effect.  So the Forum, not considered the new pleadings of the complainant.

          Accordingly the complainant has to produce the document in
Ext. A1 series.  The bill submitted before opposite party (1) dated 05-12-17  Rs.823, (2) dated 03-02-18 Rs.779 (3) dated 05-04-18 Rs.735 and (4) dated 02-06-18 Rs.691 for a total amount of Rs.3,028 as per the tune of Ext.A1 .  Ext. A2 the reply send by opposite party to clear that the water connection of complainant is disconnected for last 6 months.  In Ext.A3 the complaint receipt filed by the complainant before the Collector and Ext.A4 is the estimate for the new line connection.

          Hence the opposite party is in deficiency of service regarding the collection of bill at the time of disconnecting water supply.  From the available undisputed evidence from the side of complainant she proved her case with documentary evidence.

          Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that the opposite party is liable to refund the bill amount Rs.3,028 to the complainant with Rs.1,000 as compensation and Rs.1,000 as cost of the litigation. Hence the complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.3,028 (Rupees Three Thousand and Twenty Eight only) with Rs.1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost to the complainant within 30 days on receipt of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per the Provision of Consumer Protection Act,1986.

                    Dated this the 30^th day of September, 2019.

        Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

   President                                               Member                                     

   ROY PAUL                                   MOLY KUTTY MATHEW

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1. Series

1. Bill No.31381311 dated 05-12-17(Rs.823)
2. Bill No.33104897 dated 03-02-18(Rs.779)
3. Bill No.34968051 dated 05-04-18 (Rs. 735)
4. Bill No.36749341 dated 02-06-18 (Rs. 691)

A2. Copy of Reply letter to Assistant Executive Engineer dated 09-03-18.

A3.Copy of Receipt dated 20-03-18

A4. Copy of Estimate

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

Nil

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

                                                                               Forwarded by Order

                                                                            Senior Superintendent