BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 21/05/2010

Date of Order : 30/06/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 308/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant was a domestic category consumer of the opposite party. The complainant had remitted the water charges upto 31-03-1998. Time and again, the complainant caused letters to the opposite party stating that he was not getting water. Finally on 02-01-1998, the complainant requested the opposite party to disconnect the water connection. In the meantime, the opposite party issued a disconnection notice to the complainant dated 28-04-1999. The complainant caused to issue a reply stating that he has no objection in disconnecting the water supply. The facts being so on 13-01-2006, the opposite party caused another letter intimating disconnection of the water supply to which the complainant sent a reply narrating the real facts. As a bolt from the blue on 18-05-2007, the Thiruvankulam village authorities served a revenue recovery notice to the complainant intimating to pay Rs. 4,701/- towards water charge arrears. Thus, the complainant is before us to get the impugned bill set aside.

2. Version of the opposite party :

The complainant remitted water charges upto March 1998 at the PIC rate in advance on 20-05-1997. On 28-04-1999, the opposite party issued a disconnection advice memo to the complainant, since there was water charge arrears. But he did not remit the amount. When the complainant submitted an application requesting disconnection, the opposite party directed him to file application in proper form. At that juncture, the complainant intimated his willingness to proceed with the connection and requested to replace the faulty meter. The meter was replaced on 18-02-2000. A notice was issued on 25-05-2004 to the complainant to keep the meter on a position so as to take the meter reading. Thereafter, the gate of the complainant remained locked. Finally on 10-11-2008, the connection was disconnected and requested the District Collector to proceed with Revenue Recovery Proceedings. The complainant is liable to pay Rs. 4,701/- to the opposite party.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A12 were marked on his side. The opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B7 were marked on their side. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the counsel for the opposite party.

4. The only point that arose for consideration is whether the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 4,701/- to the opposite party or not? During the proceedings in this Forum vide order in I.A. No. 276/2010 dated 21-05-2010, this Forum directed the Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Kanayannur Taluk and Village Officer, Thiruvankulam not to initiate further proceedings in the Revenue Recovery notice initiated against the complainant till disposal of the complaint.

5. According to the complainant, he had issued Ext. A6 letter dated 02-01-1998 to disconnect his water connection with effect from April 1998. It is stated that in the meantime, the opposite party issued Ext. A7 disconnection advice dated 28-04-1999 to which the complainant sent Ext. A8 letter dated 10-05-1999 repeating his request in Ext. A6. It is further stated that the opposite party ought to have disconnected the water connection with effect from April 1998 and the complainant is not liable to pay any further amount to the opposite party.

6. The opposite party contended that even in consequence of the request for disconnection of the water supply, the complainant had issued Ext. B7 letter dated 29-12-1999 requesting the opposite party to replace the defective water meter and expressing his willingness to remit the water charges on the basis of the replaced meter. So, the complainant is liable to pay the water charges till the disconnection.

7. Ext. B7 is photography allegedly issued by the complainant. During cross-examination, DW2 admitted that they are not in possession of the original of Ext. B7. It is pertinent to note that the said document was not confronted with PW1, while he was in the dock. We have carefully gone through Ext. B7 and found that the signature and name of the complainant is the photocopy from Ext. A10 letter dated 01-03-2006 asking to withdraw the Revenue Recovery Proceedings issued by the complainant to the opposite party. The base of the case of the opposite party is Ext. B7 which is not an original document but only a photocopy. The opposite party has no explanation as to where the original or how if at all, it has been lost no explanation is coming forth which compelling this Forum to took askance at the veracity or credentials of the same. This Forum tends to be skeptical of the veracity of the document submitted which is marked as Ext. B7. Further, Ext. B1 consumer personal ledger goes to show that no meter reading is seen till the date of disconnection, the absence of the same in Ext. B1 confirms the same. So, the wind blows in favour of the consumer. In view of the above, we hold that the complainant is not liable to pay any amount as per the impugned demand.

8. It is explained before us how such fallibility could have come to from a Forum such as Water Authority more so unaccountable. The ground on which the complainant has founded himself even without grounds of compensation and costs only because of his bonafide belief in the Rule of law gathers appreciation of this Forum, we hope the opposite party would take into due consideration henceforth.

9. Accordingly, we allow the complaint and order as follows :

 

1. We set aside Ext. A12 demand notice dated 07-05-2010.

2. The order in I. A, No 276/2010 is made absolute.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of June 2011.