CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

                                            

CC No.21/10

                                                              Friday the 28^th day of October, 2011

 

Petitioner                                                  : M. Raghavakurup,

                                                                   Mulamthanathu,

                                                                   Channanickadu PO,

                                                                   Kottayam.

                                                                   (Adv. Sajan A.Varghese)

                                                             Vs.

Opposite party                                         : Kerala Water Authority Rep.by its

                                                                  Executive Engineer,

                                                                  P.H. Sub Division,

                                                                  K.W.A. Kottayam.

                                                                2) The Asst.Executive Engineer

                                                                     P.H. Sub Division,

                                                                   Kerala Water Authority, Kottayam.          

 

 

            The case of the complainant presented on 3/2/10 is as follows.

            He had a water connection from the opposite party up to 1991 with vide consumer No.K.10/10/ND. He had remitted the water charges as per the bills issued by the opposite party without any default. The water connection was disconnected in the year 2003 itself. The opposite party issued notice dated 19/12/09 to pay an amount of Rs.1,60,027/- to be paid within 7 days of notice. The complainant had given representation to the opposite party dtd 5/1/10 and the opposite party consider the representation of the complainant in the adalath conducted by the 1^st opposite party at Kottayam on 14/1/10. Considering the representation opposite party passed an order to pay Rs.40,847/- without considering the contentions of the complainant. According to petitioner arrear are calculated without any basis and simply mentioned as arrears from 8/02 to 3/08. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is not liable to remit the demanded amount. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

            The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The complainant availed water connection in the year 1991, but not remitted water charges properly. Due to non-payment of water charges and arrears by the complainant, the opposite party was forced to disconnect the water connection on 27/2/2004. The bill issued was not an illegal one. It was based on meter reading. The complainant has no case that he is not using water and he is not a consumer of the opposite party.   The representation was considered in adalath. The adalath committee verified and found that his water connection was disconnected. After considering the contention of the complainant the adalath directed him to pay Rs.40,847/- as one time settlement. The one time settlement is a scheme to relax the interest on water charge arrears. At the time of adalath, the complainant agreed with the decision and the complainant signed on the adalalth award document. It was very clear that the petitioner was trying to evade from his liability to pay of the arrear bill. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

            The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts.A1 to A3. The opposite parties filed proof affidavit.

            Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties are issued illegal demand to him without any basis. According to him the water connection was disconnected in the year 2002 itself. The opposite party has taken a contention that the bill was not illegal and the same was on the basis of actual meter readings and the period from 8/02 to 3/08. According to them the complainant was liable to remit the bills. Admittedly the water connection was disconnected by the opposite party on 27/2/2004. But the complainant was specifically submitted that the water connection was disconnected in the year 2002 itself. The arrear bill(A1) dtd 19/12/2009 was issued by the opposite party to the complainant. From A1 it was not seen the calculation and any meter reading and other details.

            The opposite party has consider the request made by the complainant in adalath conducted by the opposite party and reduced the arrear bill amount of Rs.1,60,027/- was to Rs.40,847/-. However there was no evidence adduced by the opposite party on what basis the amount was reduced. The opposite party has not a case that the complainant was using water till today without remitting the water charges. Moreover the opposite party has not adduced any evidence to show that the petition was using water during disputed period ie(A1). So we have no reasons to dis-beleive the case of the complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.

            In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. We set aside the disputed bill(A1) issued by the opposite party. Both parties will suffer their respective costs.

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

 

 

Ext.A1-is the copy of demand notice dtd 19/12/2009

Ext.A2-is the copy of representation dtd 5/1/2010

Ext.A3-is the copy of order in adalath

 

By Order,

 

Senior Superintendent.