IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Monday the 28^th day of February, 2011

Filed on 06.10.06

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

C.C.No.228/06

between

Complainant:-                                                             Opposite Party:-

     Sri.Gireesh.K.G,                                                      The Assistant Executive Engineer,

     Tiny Tots,                                                                Kerala Water Authority,

     Thondankulangara,  Alappuzha.                              Vazhicherry, Alappuzha.

     (By Adv.C.V.Lumumba)                                         (By Adv.S.Naushad)

O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

The complainant case is as follows: - The complainant was the consumer of the opposite party. He had availed a water connection from the opposite party vide consumer No.1795/N in his building bearing No.604/XI. The said building had been rented out to the Government of Kerala. The 'Children's Court, Alappuzha' was being functioned therein. In 1996, the same was shifted from the complainant's building. Being the tenant, the Government had paid off the entire water charges without any default. With the result, the complainant requested the opposite party to sever off the said water connection. As such the same was disconnected. There after, the complainant sold out the aforesaid property to a third party. They availed a new connection from the opposite party vide consumer No.10172/N.  In the meantime, in 2006 the opposite party issued a demand notice to the complainant requiring him to remit Rs.38717/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand seven hundred and seventeen only) against the arrears of water charges. The said notice contained nothing as to the details with regard to the projected amount. The complainant is not liable to pay any amount required by the opposite party. The complainant sent a reply notice impressing them upon the said aspect. The complainant had never made any default of water charges. If at all any arrears of water charges are left to be paid off, the same is barred by limitation. The opposite party is taking preparations to proceed against the complainant to recover the alleged amount of arrears. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.

1. Notice was sent. The opposite party at a later stage turned up and filed version with the permission of this Forum. The significant contention of the opposite party is that the complainant had never requested the opposite party to cut off the water connection as claimed by him. The same still subsists. The new connection bearing No.10172/N after a short-term disconnection still exists. As per the records, the complainant is liable to pay off Rs.39616/-(Rupees thirty nine thousand six hundred and sixteen only) against the water connection bearing No. 1795/N. The opposite party is entitled to the said amount. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the opposite party asserts. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the opposite party submits.

2. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PWl, and the documents Exbts Al to A3 were marked. Exbt Al is the demand notice, A2 is the reply notice the complainant issued to the opposite party and A3 is the A/D card. On the side of the opposite party, the opposite party himself was examined as RWl, and the documents Exbt. Bl and B2 were marked. Exbt B1 and B2 are copies of concerned pages of the ledger.

3. Taking into account the contentions of the parties, the questions crop up for consideration are:-

(a) Whether the complainant caused the water charges fall in arrears?

(b) Whether there is deficiency of service?

(c) If so cost and compensation?

4. It is worth while to note that the specific case of the complainant is that the water connection in issue was cut off in 1996. What's more, the tenant of the complainant had paid off the entire water charge. The opposite party contends that the said water connection still exists. According to the opposite party, a new water connection also exists in the same building. We went through the materials placed on by the parties. At the first blush itself it appears that the opposite party is absolutely defenseless. Barring the above bare statements, the opposite party did not make it a point to produce any materials to disprove the complainant's consistent case. Admittedly, a new connection was provided to the same building wherein the connection in question existed. If there were arrears with regard to the water connection bearing No.1795/N the opposite party ought not to have provided a new connection in the same building. Further, the opposite party could have required the complainant to remit the defaulted amount prior to providing the fresh connection. It is worthy of notice that the tenant dispossessed the building in question in 1996. There after the complainant sold out the said property to a third person. Prior to the same, the water connection wherein there are alleged arrears was disconnected at the request of the complainant. It appears that all these period the opposite party was sitting back without taking any steps to recover the alleged arrears. It is unnatural that at a very later stage, the opposite party come forth with the contention that there were arrears in the earlier connection. We are least hesitant to hold that the conduct of the opposite party as to the issuance of the notice in question apparently appears anomalous rather unauthorized. We are of the strong view that in as much as, the opposite party without any requisite basis issued notice to the complainant claiming a huge amount as arrears of water charge, the service of the opposite party is deficient. No doubt, the opposite party inflicted enormous sufferings and tribulations to the complainant. Needless to say, the case advanced by the complainant stands unassailed and explicit.

In the light of the aforesaid facts and findings, we declare that Exbt A1 demand notice issued to the complainant by the opposite party is void, and as such the same stands cancelled. The opposite party is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation and pay Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) as cost to the proceedings. The opposite party shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.

Complainant stands disposed accordingly.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28^th day of February, 2011.

                                                                                                                                Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi 

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                -           Gireesh.K.G (Witness)

Ext. A1            -           The Demand Notice dated, 22.08.2006

Ext. A2            -           The reply notice of the complainant issued to the opposite party

Ext. A3            -           The A/D Card

 Evidence of the opposite party:-

RW1                -           Jayaprasad.B (Witness)

Ext. B1 -           The copy of the Consumer Personal Ledger page No.92

Ext. B2 -           The copy of the Consumer Personal Ledger page No.111

// True Copy //

                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/-    

Compared by:-