By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint in brief is as follows:<br /> <br /> The Complainant was enjoying the Water Connection of the consumer No.7. The charges imposed and the Complainant was remitted regularly till May 2001. On 16.5.2001 the Complainant gave an application in the office of the Opposite party for the disconnection of water supply. Upon the application a person came from the office of the Opposite party and the meter was taken by him and the pipe was closed detaching the connection. The house to which the supply of Water was given is dismantled by the Complainant. After the lapse of years the Complainant received a notice from the Opposite party that the charge payable by the Complainant Rs. 11,184/- towards the use of water was not given and a notice dated 3.4.2007 is given to the Complainant. The Opposite party was convinced of the facts. The Complainant is not entitled for any payment as demanded being the collection was detached from 2001 May<br /> (Contd......2)<br /> -2-<br /> onwards and upon the direction of the Opposite party. The Complainant gave an application in Revenue Adalath conducted by Kerala Water Authority to make him free from the liability of payment. The Complainant had not attended the Adalath convened by the Opposite party. An award was passed and inform to the Complainant that he had to pay Rs. 5,694/- towards the settled amount. The Complainant is not liable for the payment of any amount. The direction of the Opposite party to pay the amount is the deficiency in service. There may be a direction to the Opposite party to cancel the order dated 3.4.2007 for the pays of Rs. 11,184/- and the Opposite party may be directed to revoke the award numbered 34/2007. The Complainant is also entitled for the compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. <br /> <br /> The Opposite party filed version on their appearance. The Complainant is the subscriber of Thoduvatty Water Supply scheme with Consumer Number 7. The Water connection was <br /> availed by the Complainant on 14.12.1993. The charge levied upon the Complainant has been paid from time to time till April 2001. The disconnection of Water Supply if to be effected it is upon the remittance of Rs. 65/- the fees levied for it. The Complainant neither paid in fees for disconnection nor any application was given in that effect. The meter was taken back by the Opposite party and the disconnection not effected. The Complainant was upon notice for the remittance of the subscription charge being the disconnection was not directed. On 18.5.2007 representative of the Complainant made her presence in the adalath and the matter in the dispute was settled. The penal interest of Rs. 6,124/- charged against the Complainant was cut off. The Complainant was directed to pay balance amount Rs. 5,694 in installment as agreed by the representative. The Complainant had not remitted any amount as agreed in the adalath. Moreover as per the rule of the Water Authority in case of any transference or disconnection of the Water Connection prior permission was to be obtained from the concerned. The Complainant has not done anything as such. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party the complaint is to be dismissed.<br /> (Contd......3)<br /> - 3 -<br /> Points in consideration are:<br /> 1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party?<br /> 2. Relief and Cost.<br /> Point No.1:<br /> The Complainant is examined as PW1. Ext. A1 is the bill dated 3.4.2007 issued by the <br /> Opposite Party to the Complainant. The amount demanded for payment as per Ext. A1 is 11,184/-. Ext. A2 is the settlement order Rs. 6,174/- is seen waived and the balance amount Rs. 5,694/- is the amount to be remitted as adalath proceedings. The adalath proceeding is signed by Sterlin Subash and the adalath Officer. The Complainant set a notice to the Executive Engineer Kerala Water Authority dated 10.4.2007. Carbon copy of the notice is marked <br /> Ext. A3. The Opposite party is examined as OPW1. Representative who acquired in adalath for the Complainant is examined as OPW2. It is admitted that the Complainant was a regular payee of the Water charges. There was no dues from the Complainant till 2001. The disconnection of Water Supply is effected if the payment is not made in time and even for absence of proper and functioning meter. Supply of water will be disconnected for these reasons also. According to the Opposite party water supply is not disconnected recordically. The connection was also virtually not in effect. At least once in an year according to the Opposite party, the inspection of the meter is to be carried out. From 2001 May onwards no inspection was carried out. In the case of a Falty metre the charge levied upon the consumer is on the basis of a consumption of the last 6 months. Opposite party further deposed that the representative of the Complainant, attended the adalath not produced any authorisation letter. It is testimonied by the Opposite party that the person who is authorise in writing is legally entitled to attened in behalf of another person in adalath. Here in no such authorisation produced. The person who attended the adalath deposed that she was informed from the office of the Opposite party by phone to attended the adalath and no authorisation was produced by<br /> the delegate. The presence of the representative in adalath cannot be treated upon the consent of<br /> (Contd......4)<br /> -4- <br /> the Complainant. The proceedings of the adalath convened by the Opposite party with respect to the Complainant in the absence of the Complainant himself or any one not duly authorized for the Complainant is not binding upon the Complainant. The Complainant is not entitled to pay an amount as demanded by the Opposite party. The point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant.<br /> <br /> Point No.2:<br /> Complainant is demanded to pay Rs. 11,184/- is Ext. A1. Where as Rs. 6,l74/- was waived of. The balance amount Rs. 56,941 was the settled amount as per the Ext. A2. The notice of disconnection advise was issued to the Complainant as admittedly the supply was not<br /> detached recordically the Opposite Party is bound to act as per the provisions of law of water supply regulation Act. The disconnection of the supply of water in records rests upon the Opposite party in case of any violation of the terms and provisions. The provisions bound to acted by the Opposite Party if not manupulated for which consumer is not to be penalised. The disconnection advise dated issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer dated 03.04.2007 charging Rs. 11,184/- is squashed. <br /> <br /> In the result the Complainant is not entitled for any payment imposed by the Opposite Party towards the water connection. The proceedings of the adalath is also squashed. Opposite Party is also directed to give the Complainant Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards the cost.<br /> Pronounced in open forum on this the 19th day of March 2008.<br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> <br /> /True Copy/<br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> - 5 -<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> Witnesses for the Complainant:<br /> PW1. Joy. P.M Complainant.<br /> Witnesses for the Opposite Party:<br /> OPW1. Thankaraj Asst. Engineer Water Authority.<br /> OPW2. Stefin Paul House wife.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Complainant:<br /> A1. Disconnection Advice. dt:03.04.2007.<br /> A2. Settlement Order. <br /> A3. Copy of the Notice. dt:10.4.2007.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Opposite Party:<br /> Nil.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> Compared by:<br /> <br /> M/<br /> <br />