IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday, the 30th day of November, 2011
Filed on 04/07/2009
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No.239/2009
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Smt. Claramma Chacko 1. Kerala Water Authority
Pulickalparambil Veedu Public Health Sub Division
Thathampally P.O. Vazhicherry, Alappuzha
Alappuzha Represented by its Assistant
Executive Engineer
(By Adv. T.J.Thulasikrishnan)
2. The District Collector
Alappuzha
3. The Deputy Tahsildar
Revenue Recovery
Taluk Office, Alappuzha
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case in succinct is as follows: - The complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties holding consumer No.2110/N. The complainant had been obtaining water from the said connection from 1987 to 1997. The complainant had remitted the water charge paid one more year subsequent to the supply of water came to a halt. On passage of 1998, no water supply was there in and around the surroundings of the complainant's residence. There are no arrears of water charges to be paid to the opposite party. The complainant on umpteen occasions approached the opposite parties, and on 19th November 2002 and 25th September 2007 the complainant lodged petitions as to the non-availability water in the complainant's area. The opposite parties were unenthusiastic to take any possible steps. In the meanwhile, the opposite parties on 19th September 2007 served a notice to the complainant pointing out that the meter was faulty and the complainant has not been paying the water charge. The complainant paid off the charge for the water the opposite parties supplied. The opposite parties are unlawfully trying to extract money from the complainant. The service of the opposite party is deficient. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On notice being served, the 1st opposite party turned up and field version. The contention of the 1st opposite party is that the water was supplied to the complainant till 1st March 2008. On the said date, the water connection was severed due to the shortfall on the part of the complainant. According to the opposite party, the complainant was not at all prepared to replace the defective water meter, despite recurring demands to that effect from the part of the opposite party. The complainant is liable to pay arrears of water charge to the tune of Rs.3,134/- to the opposite party. The complaint is without any basis which is to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party, the 1st opposite party forcefully contends.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the power of attorney holder of the complainant, and the documents Exts. Al to A4 were marked. The commission report was marked as Ext Xl. On the side of the opposite parties, save filing the version no evidence was let in.
4. Taking into account the contentions of the parties, the questions crop up for
consideration are:-
(1) Whether the complainant is liable to pay water charges to the opposite party?
(2) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
5. We meticulously perused the complaint, version and other materials available on record before us. On an analysis of the entire materials, it appears that the opposite parties were not keen on pursuing the proceedings with enough eagerness. Save filing the version, the opposite parties have not brought in any materials to prove its indistinct contentions. The complainant case is that the water supply in the material area was ceased in 1997. Even then the complainant had paid off the water charges till 1998. The opposite party filed a perfunctory version putting forth indefinite contentions unsupported by any materials. On a plain perusal of Ext. Al it is unfolded that the notice issued by the opposite parties is vague and ineloquent. Nothing has been brought before us as to in what manner the opposite parties arrived on the amount Rs.3,134/- to be paid by the complainant. Needless to say the opposite parties' case is mystifying and ambiguous. The opposite party has not adopted any sincere steps to bring home its contentions. On the other hand, the complainant's version is emphatic and assertive supported by sufficient materials. On top of all these, the Ext.Xl commission report speaks enormously as to the plight of the people in the material area with no water supply in the area for the last 14 years. In this context, the contentions of the opposite parties do not in any way merit acceptance. Obviously, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Indubitably, the complainant is entitled to relief.
6. In the wake of what have been elaborated supra, opposite parties are directed to restore the water supply forthwith. Inasmuch as, no water supply was provided to the complainant since 1998, the complainant is not liable to pay any amount by means of water charge to the opposite parties. The complainant shall commence to remit the water charge on the basis of consumption of water subsequent to the restoration of the water supply by the opposite parties. The interim order passed in this case is hereby made absolute. The opposite parties shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.
In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to compensation or cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N. Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Notice dated 19.9.2007
Ext.A2 - Letter dated 25.09.2007
Ext.A3 - Letter dated 19.11.2002
Ext.X1 - Commission order, Report, Mahazor, Notice
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
