Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/334

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

BABU CHACKO - Opp.Party(s)

ISSAC SAMUEL

18 Jan 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 334/14

 

JUDGMENT DATED: 18.01.2016

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                        :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                                   : MEMBER

1. Executive Engineer, PH Division,                     

KWA, Kottayam.                

: APPELLANTS

2. Asst. Executive Engineer, PH Division,                      

KWA, Kottayam.                            

 

(By Adv: Sri. Issac Samuel)

 

            Vs.

 

Babu Chacko,

Ettukadavil Veedu,                                                             : RESPONDENT

T.B.Road, Kottayam.

 

(By Adv: Sri. D.R. Rajesh)

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.145/12 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam challenging the order of the Forum dated May 16, 2014 cancelling the bill issued by the opposite parties for the alleged arrears of water charges.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

Complainant had a water connection of opposite parties having Consumer No.K13/411.  He was remitting water charge regularly without any default.  Complainant is employed in Gulf country and is residing there.  Once or twice in a year he used to reside in this house for one or two months.  At the request of the complainant opposite parties replaced the water meter.  On noting the meter reading for three months it was find out that old meter was faulty, but in 2.12.2001 opposite parties disconnected the water connection of the complainant.  No notice is received from opposite parties demanding arrear of water charges.  Therefore complainant filed this complaint for reinstate his water connection and claiming compensation.

3.      Opposite parties are Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Authority, Kottayam.  They in their version contended thus before the Forum.

4.      On the basis of meter reading the complainant used excessive water from 28.07.2008 to 27.4.2011.  Complainant remitted only the minimum charge.  Inspite of notice issued complainant did not remit the arrears.  He remitted Rs.15,000/- when there was arrears of Rs.36,364/-.  It was on 16.7.2011 the meter was replaced.  Thereafter the consumption was found to be normal.  As the complainant did not remit arrears, his water connection was disconnected which was later reinstated.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.

5.      Complainant filed his proof affidavit and produced Exts.A1 and A2 and no evidence was adduced by opposite parties before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum cancelled the bill issued by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties have come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

6.      Heard both the counsels.

7.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was excessive consumption of water by the complainant from 28.07.2008  to  27.4.2011?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

 

8.      The counsel for appellants argued that the bill was issued based on the meter reading and that therefore complainant is bound to remit the amount shown in the bill.  For the following reasons we are unable to accept the above contention.  Admittedly water meter of the complainant was replaced on 15.07.2011.  Alleged excessive consumption of water was recorded prior to that from 28.7.2008 to 27.4.2011.  It is not in dispute that after replacement of water meter the consumption was normal.  It is clear from the above that the alleged excessive consumption of water is recorded due to the defective meter which cannot be accepted as correct.  That being so we confirm the finding of the Forum that complainant has not consumed excessive water as alleged in the bill issued and therefore it is liable to be cancelled.

In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

 

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

 

VL.