IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
C C No.48/2020 (filed on 06/03/2020)
Petitioner : John Abraham, Akkara Malikayil House,
Thazhathangady P.O, Kottayam.
(Adv. Thomas Mathew)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The State of Kerala represented by the
District Collector, Kottayam.
2) Secretary, Kerala Water Authority,
Thiruvananthapuram.
3) Assistant Executive Engineer, P.H
Subdividion, Kerala water Authority,
Kottayam.
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The case is filed Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The brief of the complaint’s Case is as follows,
The complainant’s grandfather was having a water connection with consumer number M20/160/D. The grandfather died on 10-01-1965. The complainant’s father used to pay the water charges after the death of the grandfather. Thereafter, the complainant got the ownership and possession of the house and property having the water connection. The complainant had remitted the pending water charges for Rs.557/- and disconnection charges Rs.65/- before the 3rd opposite party. An application was submitted for the disconnection of the water connection.
But on 18-02-2019, the 3rd opposite party issued a notice demanding to pay Rs.5181/-, failing which report would be submitted to the District Collector for initiating revenue recovery proceedings. A notice was received from the first opposite party dated 24-10-19 demanding to pay Rs.5221/- with interest, otherwise would start revenue recovery proceedings. The complainant is not bound to pay any amount after clearing the water charges and remitting the disconnection fees. The act of the opposite party is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint is filed.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties.
Opposite parties 2 and 3 appeared and filed joint version. As per the version of opposite parties 2 and 3, the arrears of the water charges up to 9/2003 of the water connection M20/106/D was remitted and Rs.65/- being the disconnection fees also paid in 24-09-2003. Due to the fault in the computer system, the manual receipt was issued for the remittance of the disconnection fees. But due to some omission, the remittance of the fees was not entered in the computer system, and thereby the water charges for the remaining months were also calculated. The act was not intentional. Under these circumstances a notice was issued to the complainant on 18-02-2019. But no complaint was received about the notice by the 3rd opposite party and consequently action was initiated for the revenue recovery. The receipt produced by the complaint has been accepted and action was initiated to withdraw the request for revenue recovery proceedings. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
The first opposite party filed version as follows,
The third opposite party informed that the complainant had remitted the water charges and Rs.65/- being the disconnection fees. But the remittance of the disconnection fee was not entered in the computer due to the fault of the computer. Since the disconnection details were not available in the computer. Notice was issued to the complainant. On getting information, action was initiated to enter the disconnection date in the computer system and to stop the revenue recovery proceedings. Considering these facts, action may be taken to close the complaint.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked 11 documents as Exhibits A1 to A11.
The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties filed proof affidavit and marked document as Exhibit B1.
On the basis of the complaint and proof affidavit of the complainant and version of the opposite party, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
- If so what are the reliefs and costs.
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider the Points 1 and 2
together.
Pont No.1 and 2
On going through the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence on record it is clear that the house of the complainant was having a water connection with consumer no.M20/160/D. The water connection was in the name of complainant’s grandfather. After the death of the grandfather the complainant got ownership and possession of the house. The complainant remitted the pending water charges and submitted an application before third opposite party for the disconnection of the water connection after remitting the disconnection charges on 24-09-2003. But opposite parties initiated revenue recovery proceedings to recover the pending water charges with interest.
Exhibit A1 is the notice issued by opposite party No.3 dated 18-02-2019 intimating the complainant to remit Rs.5181/- being the pending water charges with fine failing which report will be submitted to the District Collector for revenue recovery proceedings. Exhibit A2 is the revenue recovery notice issued by the first opposite party dated 24-10-2019 demanding the complainant to pay Rs.5221/- being the pending water charges with fine.
Exhibit A5 is the copy of the receipt for the payment of Rs.65/- towards the disconnection fee paid on 24-09-2003.
Exhibit A3 series are the demand and disconnection notices issued by the third opposite party on 27-09-2013, 11-02-2014, 26-08-2014, 23-10-2014 and 22-06-2015 after the payment of disconnection fee on 24-09-2003 vide exhibit A5.
Exhibit A8 is the revenue recovery notice dated 02-11-2019 issued by the first opposite party. Exhibit B1 is the document marked by the second and third opposite parties. As per Exhibit B1 dated 10-06-2020, the third opposite party had requested the first opposite party, the District Collector for withdrawing the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the complainant for the non payment of water charges.
Exhibit A10 is the demand notice with postal seal issued by opposite party 3 dated 19-02-2021 demanding the complainant to remit an amount of Rs.5291/- on or before 28-02-2021.
Based on the above-discussed evidence, even if we accept the version of the third opposite party that when the disconnection fee was paid on 24.09.2003,the computer was at fault which resulted in the matter not being entered in the computer system. However, they did not offer a proper explanation why they failed to check the Manual Register which they are bound to keep in the office.
The 3rd opposite party had also requested the District Collector vide Ext B1 letter dated 10.06.2020 to close the revenue recovery proceedings against the complainant. Thereafter the 3rd opposite party issued Ext A10 demand notice having postal seal 19.02.2021 to the complainant demanding to pay Rs.5291/- on or before 28.02,2021, The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for issuing this demand notice. This act is clear negligence on their part, which initiated revenue recovery proceedings by the District Collector against the complainant. This caused mental agony and suffering to the complainant. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are liable to provide compensation for this lapse.
Based on the above findings, we are of the opinion that these acts of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties in not disconnecting the water connection on receiving the disconnection fee on 24.09.2003 and subsequent actions on their
part is a deficiency in service as per the consumer protection act 1986.
Hence Points No.1 and 2 are found in favour of the complainant. We allow the complaint and pass the following orders.
1 The first opposite party is directed to close the revenue recovery proceedings
initiated against the complainant.
2 The Second and third opposite parties are directed to disconnect the Domestic water connection with No.M.20/160/D with effect from 24.09.2003.
3 The second and third opposite parties are directed to give RS 10,000/-to the
complainant as compensation for the mental agony and suffering with cost
Rs.2000/-.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 26th day of September, 2022
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of notice dtd.18-02-19 issued by opposite party
A2 – Copy of revenue recovery dtd.24-10-19
A3 series – Copy of demand and disconnection notices (5 nos.)
A4-Copy of notice dtd.10-05-14 and postal receipt issued by Consumer
Guidance & Research Society of India to Dr.P.E. thomsas, The
Executive Engineer
A5- Copy of receipt issued by opposite party
A6 – Copy of notice dtd.12-01-2006
A7 –Copy of notice dtd.28-11-2011
A8 – Copy of notice dtd.02-11-2019
A9 – Attachment notice issued by Kottayam village office to John Arabaham
A10 – Copy of notice issued by Asst. Executive Engineer to complainant
A11 – Copy of notice dtd.27-10-2009
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of notice dtd.10-06-20 issued by opposite party to Dist. Collector,
Kottayam
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
