KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FIRST APPEAL:111/2008 JUDGMENT DATED:01..02..2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, : APPELLANT Sulthan Bathery. (By Adv:Sri.C.Sudheesh Kumar) Vs. Joy.P.M, Mannadiyil Veedu, : RESPONDENT Pattarupady, Bathery.P.O. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/Kerala Water Authority in CC:23/07 in the file of CDRF, Kalpetta. The bill issued for Rs.11,184/- stands cancelled. The appellant is also under orders to pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards cost. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had applied for disconnection on 16..5..2001 and the opposite party removed the meter and the pipe was also closed detaching the connection. After the lapse of years on 3..4..2007 the impugned bill for Rs.11,184/- was issued. In the adalath convened by the opposite party the complainant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,694/- although he had not attended the adalath. Hence he has sought for setting aside the bill and also the direction to pay Rs.5,694/-. He has also claimed a compensation of Rs.5000/-. 3. The case of the opposite party is that the disconnection fee ie Rs.65/- was not paid by the complainant and hence the disconnection was not effected. It is admitted that the complainant had applied for disconnection and also that the meter was removed. In the absence of compliance of the rules in this regard the connection cannot be treated as dismantled. It is stressed that at the adalath the representative of the complainant had attended and the penal interest was waived and the balance Rs.5,694/- was agreed to be remitted. It is thereafter the present complaint is filed. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, OPW1, OPW2, Exts.A1 to A3. 5. It is pointed out that OPW2 is a daughter in law of the complainant who had attended the adalath and hence the complainant cannot disown participation in the adalath. Of course the attitude of the complainant in this regard is not proper. All the same we find that for the lapse on the part of the complainant to deposit the disconnection fee of Rs.65/- he cannot be imposed with a liability of such an extent in view of the fact, the receipt of the application for disconnection is admitted and the fact that the meter was removed is also admitted. Perhaps the petitioners were unaware of the requirement of depositing the disconnection fee. There is no evidence that any notice in this regard was sent to the complainant. In the circumstances we find that no interference is called for in the order of the Forum. All the same the direction to pay cost of Rs.500/- is set aside. In the result the appeal is allowed in part as above. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL. | 
