ORDER SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. George Thomas, has filed this complaint before the Forum against the opposite party, alleging deficiency in service. The brief facts of his allegation are as follows:- He is a consumer of the opposite party vide Consumer No. 183, for water connection from 1990 onwards. But for the last 10 years, he had not obtained water from the tap. On several times he had intimated this matter to the opposite party. On the basis of his petition before the ‘Suthariya Keralam’ conducted by the Chief Minister of Kerala, on 25.06.08 he had, received a letter from the opposite party stating that the connecting point of his tap was closed and, it is to be rectified. On verification by the contractor, it was learnt that the connecting point was not closed. On 7.2.08, he had received a Bill for 3069/- from the opposite party. He is directed to remit the amount, even though he had not obtained water. In reply to his request, on 25.06.08, after verification through contractors, on 08.07.08, he had received a further notice, directing him to remit Rs. 3214/- on or before 24.07.08, and further intimated that in case any default for remittance, connection will be terminated. Vide letter dtd. 23.07.08, the opposite party had intimated him that he had getting water regularly and further directed that since the water meter was defective, he has to replace the meter by meeting the expenses. Since there was no positive steps on the part of the opposite party, he has filed the complainant seeking relief. 2. Notice was sent to the opposite party. They entered appearances before this Forum and filed version. In the version the opposite party has stated that the complainant had availed water connection from 1989 onwards. It is stated that the complainant had not remitted water charges with them from August 1998. So they had served a notice dtd. 07.02.08 to the complainant directing to remit the water charges Rs. 3069/-. But so far the complainant had not remitted the amount, and filed a petition before the ‘Suthariya Keralam’ programme with out any basis up to that period, he had not filed any petition before them. But tin that petition he had noted that on 27.06.08 he obtained water. The present petition is to evade from the remittance of water charges. It is further stated that the difficulty to get the water for his residence was the result of damage of the pipe, and the opposite party has no liability to rectify that defect. This matter was communicated to the complainant and directed him to rectify the defect of the connection pipe. The surrounding residences of the complainant including the complainant had obtained water now. Complainant is bound to remit the water charges from 8/98 and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 3. Considering the contentions of the opposite party, this Forum has raised the following issues. 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 2. Compensation and costs? 4. Issues 1 and 2:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in the support of his case and produced documents in evidence – Ext.A1 to A6 – marked. Ext. A1 is the notice dtd. 07.02.08 of the opposite party to the complainant directing to remit a sum of Rs. 3064/- + 5 towards water charges, up to 1/08. Ext. A2 is the acknowledgment dtd. 02.06.08 of the petition before the ‘Suthariya Keralam’. Ext. A3 is the copy of petition of the opposite party to the complainant stating that the difficulty of getting water to the complainant was the reason of closing the connection point, and directing the complainant to rectify the defect at the expenses of the complainant. Ext. A4 is the copy of the letter to the complainant from the opposite party directing to remit a sum of Rs. 3204/ + 10 on or before 24.07.08, in order to avoid disconnection of water supply. Ext. A5 is the acknowledgement of the letter of the complainant dtd. 19.07.08, by the opposite party. Ext. A6 is the copy of the letter dtd. 23.07.08 of the opposite party to the complainant. In the letter it is stated that the water meter was defective at the time of inspection and directed the complainant, to rectify the defect at his cost, after remitting the Testing fee. 5. Opposite party has filed proof affidavit and produced documents in evidence – Ext. B1 to B4 - marked – Ext. B1 is the letter of the complaint submitted before the ‘Suthariya Keralam’ and opposite parties remarks thereon. It shows that the complainant has requested to terminate the connection in case any difficult to supply water for at least a week. Ext. B2 is the copy of the letter of opposite party to the Assistant Engineer. It shows that there is shortage of water due to misuse of water by others. Ext. B3 is the copy of letter to the complainant by the opposite party. It shows that the meter is defective. Ext. B4 is the copy of letter sent by opposite party to the Grama Panchayath. The letter shows the intimation of misuse of water by locals. 6. On a perusal of the entire matter of this case and after a detailed verification of the documents, it can be seen that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party. It is further noticed that on several occasions, the complainant had approached the opposite party for getting water and requested them to take further necessary steps. But the opposite party, has not taken any sincere effort to smooth supply of water to the complainant. Ext B3 itself shows that the opposite party has admitted that the meter was defective. Without assessing the exact quantum of water used by the complainant, the opposite party has assessed the amount in an arbitrary manner and directed to remit the amount, in order to avoid to further steps for disconnection. This was highly illegal and unauthorized. Without assessing the exact position of supply of water to the complainant, the opposite party has no authority to charge the amount to the complainant. By several representation, the complainant had intimated the opposite party, regarding the shortage of water supply, without taking a positive steps to supply water properly, the opposite party has taken a negligent view in assessing the amount. The entire documents produced in evidence shows that matter. In this connection Ext. A1 and A4 documents issued by the opposite party has no locus standi and it will not bind the complainant since he had not obtained water during the periods alleged in the said exhibits. So the complainant is not entitled to remit the amounts noted in the said exhibits and it is to be quashed. In the result, we hereby quashed the bills dtd. 07.02.08 and 08.07.08 issued by the opposite party, to the complainant, and further direct the opposite party to cancel the water connection No. 183 stands in the name of the complainant. Considering the whole facts and circumstances of this case, we are not directing the opposite parties to pay any compensation or cost to the complainant. We further direct the opposite party to comply this order within 20 days from the date of this receipt of this order. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of May 2009. Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW1 - George Thomas (Witness) Ext. A1 - Notice dated. 07.02.08 Ext. A2 - Acknowledgement dated. 02.06.08 (Photocopy) Ext. A3 - Petition of the opposite party to the complainant (Photocopy) Ext. A4 - Lr. dated. 24.07.08 Ext. A5 - Acknowledgement dated. 19.07.08 (Photocopy) Ext. A6 - Lr. dated. 23.07.08 Evidence of the opposite party:- RW 1 - N.T. Abraham (Witness) Ext. B1 - Lr. of the complainant submitted before the ‘Suthariya Keralam’ Ext. B2 - Copy of the Lr. of opposite party to the Assistant Engineer Ext. B3 - Copy of Lr. to the complainant by the opposite party Ext. B4 - Copy of Lr. sent by opposite party to the Grama Panchayath // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite Party/S.F. Typed by:- vo/- Compared by:-
| | [HONORABLE K.Anirudhan] Member[HONORABLE JIMMY KORAH] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Smt;Shajitha Beevi] Member | | 
