KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 33/2018
ORDER DATED:04.09.2018
(Against the order in C.C. 163/2010 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram)
PRESENT :
HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONERS:
- The Assistant Executive Engineer, KWA, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram.
- The Secretary, KWA, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Issac Samuel)
Vs.
RESPONDENT :
Secretary, Heera Palace Residence Association, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Kowdiar S. Mohandas)
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
Opposite parties in C.C No. 163/2010 have filed this revision challenging the order of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram in I.A No. 161/17. The above I.A was filed by the complainant, a flat owners association, seeking for issue of direction from the Forum to the opposite parties to prepare a bill towards water charges consumed by the complainant association from June 2010 to June 2017 on the basis of the average monthly consumption from April 2017 under domestic tariff. That application was allowed by the Forum issuing direction as prayed for. Challenge in the revision is against that order.
2. We heard the counsel of both sides. From the submissions made and perusing records we find that the complaint is filed in 2010. The disputed question include the entitlement of the opposite party to charge and realize non-domestic tariff rate over water consumption made by the complainant association with respect to a swimming pool, forming part of the entire apartment project. Whereas the complainant association, formed by the owners of the apartments, contend that swimming pool was not in use and no water was consumed. Opposite parties have a case that the water connection given for domestic purpose had been misused for storing water in the swimming pool and as such rates at the non-domestic tariff fixed has to be realized from the apartment owners. We find it difficult to understand how the lower Forum could have passed the Order challenged in the revision when the disputed question involved for adjudication related to the tariff rate to be fixed and realized by the Water Authority from the complainant association. That question can be resolved only after taking evidence in the case. Seven years after filing of the complaint whatever be the grounds canvassed by the complainant association they could not have prosecuted an I.A of this nature for an interim relief which would amount to deciding the case without taking evidence and resolving the issue involved. We vacate the Order challenged in the revision directing the Forum to dispose the case as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
jb
