IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 206/16
Thursday the 21st day of July, 2016
Petitioner : Kerala Plantation Corporation
Employees Union (CITU)
Represented by General Secretary
R.J.Babu, Rannoor House,
PCK Staff Quarters , No.24,
Vadavathoor PO, Kottayam.
(Adv. Sooraj M. Kartha)
Vs.
Opposite parties : Kerala Water Authority
Represented by Asst.Executive
Engineer, Kottayam.
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 11-7-16 is as follows.
The complainant, Kerala Plantation Corporation Employees Union (CITU) is a consumer of the opposite party having water connection vide consumer No. KTC/5/S. According to the complainant they had remitted the water charges without any default according to the provisional invoice card issued by the opposite party as the consumption is normal. That on 8-1-2006, the complainant received a bill of Rs.45,222/-. Then the complainant filed a complaint before the Fora as CC 234/06 and the said complaint was allowed on 26-7-08. The District Fora its order dated 26-7-08 was set aside the disputed bill of Rs. 45,222/-. Against the said order the opposite party filed appeal before the State Commission as FA 209/08 and the Hon’ble State Commission was modified the order of the District Fora, cancellation of Ext.A3 arrear bill for Rs.45,225/- confirmed, but the appellant / opposite party will be at liberty to issue arrear bill for the period from 14-1-2000 to 30-9-08 for the water actually consumed by the complainant / consumer without any penal interest or penal charges.
That on 13-11-13, the opposite party again issued a demand and disconnection notice seeking an amount of Rs.3,64,515/- as arrear amount. Against the said bill the complainant filed a complaint before this Fora as
CC 54/14. The said complaint was allowed by setting aside the bill of Rs.3,64,515/- and directed the opposite party to issue fresh bill in compliance with the order of Hon’ble State Commission in FA No.209/2008. Now the opposite party issued a notice dated 24-2-16 to the complainant demanding a sum of Rs.95,937/- as due amount. According to the complainant the calculation made by the opposite party with respect to arrears of complainant’s water connection is absolutely wrong. The complainant consumed water only to the minimum monthly charges. So the opposite party can claim only the monthly rent as specified in the provisional invoice card. According to the complainant issuance of the said notice with such an exorbitant amount is baseless and is in violation of the order of the Hon’ble State Commission and District Forum and the said act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
Heard the counsel for the complainant.
Admittedly firstly the complainant filed complaint before the District Fora as CC No.234/06 against the issuance of the bill for Rs.45,222/- by the opposite party. It was allowed by the District Fora in its order dated 26-7-08. Aggrieved the opposite party filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as FA No.209/08. The Hon’ble State Commission modified the order of the District Fora by its order dated 25-9-09. As per the said order the opposite party / appellant will be at liberty to issue arrear bill for the period from 14-1-2000 to 30-9-08 for the water actually consumed by the complainant / consumer without any penal interest or penal charges. Then on 13-11-13 the opposite party issued a demand cum disconnection notice for Rs.3,64,515 as arrear amount. Against the said bill the complainant filed a complaint before the District Fora as CC 54/14. And the District Fora was set aside the above said bill and directed to issue fresh bill in compliance of the order of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in F.A No.209/08, in its order dated 30-11-15. As per the said order opposite party issued fresh bill / notice dated 24-2-16 directing the complainant to remit Rs.95,937/- as water charge till 1/06. This complaint is against the issuance of the said notice dated 24-2-16. According to the complainant the issuance of the bill is in violation of the order of the Hon’ble State Commission and district Forum. The disputed notice dated 24-2-16 is produced before the Forum. In the said notice opposite party stated that the amount is calculated as per the order in CC 54/14.
In our view the said dispute was already decided by the Hon’ble State Commission and the Fora . The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party has issued the bill dated 24-6-16 in violation of the order of the State Commission in F.A No.209/08 and District Fora in 54/14. So we are not inclined to interfere this matter again. Hence complaint is rejected under Section 12(3) of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 21st day of July, 2016.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
