KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 

     COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                                              APPEAL  NO:11/2009

                              JUDGMENT DATED:05..04..2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,                                                    : APPELLANT

P.H.Sub Division, Thodupuzha.

(By Adv:Sri.C.Sudheesh Kumar)

                        Vs.

1.K.P.Thomas,

  Kadackunathu House,

  Vannapuram.P.O,

  Thodupuzha.

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

2.Rajesh.T.V, S/o Vasudevan,

  Thuruthel House, Vannapuram.P.O,

  Thodupuzha.

3.The Deputy Thasildar (RR),

  Thodupuzha.

                                                            JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

Appellant is the opposite party/Water Authority in CC:43/07 in the file of CDRF, Idukki.  The bill issued by the appellant/opposite party for a sum of Rs.21,192/- towards the arrears of water charges stands cancelled.  The appellant is directed to enquire into the matter on the allegation that the complainant’s water connection was disconnected due to widening of the road and if found that is not so fresh bill is to be issued.

2. It is the case of the complainant that from the year 2000 onwards after the widening of the road the complainant is not having the water connection.  The matter was intimated to the opposite parties and no bills were issued thereafter.  But in January 2007 the disputed bill has been issued.  It is the case of the complainant that the official of the opposite party inspected the premises on his complaint and promised to do the needful.  But there was no action from the part of the opposite party for a long time.

3. It is the case of the opposite parties that it is not aware of the destruction or disconnections of the water connection during the construction of the road in 1999.  According to the appellant it is the duty of the complainant to get the connection restored through the licensed plumber and with the sanction of the water authority.  According to them from the year 2000 onwards the meter is faulty.  According to the opposite party the complainant has to pay the minimum charges.  They have also issued disconnection notices earlier.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.P1 and P2.

5. On an appreciation of the evidence the Forum has relied on the testimony of PW1 and directed as mentioned above.  Evidently from 1999 onwards ie after the road was widened the opposite parties have not pursued the matter properly.  No action has been taken on the representations of the complainant.  It is after about 6 years that the present bill has been issued.  Evidently, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

In the result I find that there is no scope for interference in the order of the Forum.  The appeal is dismissed.

Office will forward the LCR to the Forum urgently along with the copy of this judgment.

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

VL.