Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):
The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows. The complainant is consumers of the opposite party vide domestic connection PDM619/D dated 08/02/2017 of 1st opposite party. It is contented that the opposite parties are failed to give sufficient water supply to the complainant as agreed. Though the complainant approached the 1st and 2nd opposite party several time they did not care to redress the grievances of the complainant. Inspect of a letter dated 11/04/2017 to the 1st opposite party he failed to answer the notice or even solve the complaint. The opposite party sent a bill of Rs.10,542/- to the complainant with an intimation of further steps against the complainant. It is contented that when the opposite parties issued the said notice to the complainant the meter reading which was recorded was ‘one’ in the water meter. It is contented that the meter reading was increased to 14 units in the month of February or March of 2018. According to the complainant the water bill which the opposite parties issued was against the actual meter reading as such it has to be dismissed. The opposite parties committed deficiency in service against the complainant there by the opposite parties are liable to the complainant. Hence, the case for granting the compensation of Rs.25,000/-, regular water supply etc. etc. from the opposite parties.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to opposite parties for appearance. Though the opposite parties received notice from this Forum. They failed to appear before this Forum hence we declared ex parte against them.
4. On the basis of the contention of the complainant we framed the following issues for consideration.
(1). Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in
service as alleged?
(2). Regarding the relief and costs?
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined him as PW1. Through PW1 Ext.A1 to A3 were also marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of notice issued by opposite party dated 11/4/2017. Ext.A2 is the Acknowledgment Card. Ext.A3 is the notice dated 23/12/2017.
6. Point No.1 &2: For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point No.1 &2 together. In order to substantiate the contention of the complainant the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination as discussed above. When we go through the proof affidavit we can see that the proof affidavit is more or less as per the tune of the complaint. According to PW1 in spite of repeated demands from him with regard to the non-supply of water to his domestic connection the opposite parties failed to even hear him or resolve his complaint. It is the definite case of PW1 is that the opposite parties issued a bill for an amount of Rs.10,542/- to the complainant for the payment of excess usage of water. According to the complainant when the said notice was issued the actual meter reading of the water supply to his domestic connection was only ‘one’ unit. It is also deposed that there is no sufficient water supply to his residence after the installation of the new pipe line to his residence. We do admit that the opposite parties herein are declared ex parte in this case as such the evidence adduced by the complainant against the opposite parties are unchallengeable as far as this case is concerned.
7. When this Forum evaluate the proof affidavit, Ext.A1 to A3 and the deposition of PW1 we would like to find that PW1 was succeeded to prove the deficiency in service against the opposite parties. Being the consumer of the opposite parties the complainant has a right to get a regular water supply to his residence even as per the agreement between the parties. We also find that there is no justification on the part of the opposite parties for issuing the bill amount Rs.10,542/- as contented by the complainant. Therefore we would like to find that the complainant is succeeded to prove deficiency in service against the opposite party. Hence point No.1&2 found in favour of the complainant. The 1st and 2nd opposite party are officials concerned to Kerala Water Authority. Hence they are jointly and severally liable to the complainant.
8. In the result we pass the following orders.
1. The bill Ext.A1 issued by 1st opposite party is hereby set aside and complainant is directed to pay the minimum rate of payment for the said period.
2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) along with a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this Order.
3. The opposite parties are also directed to ensure regular water supply to the domestic water connection of the complainant vide a consumer No.PDM619/D.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2018.
(Sd/-)
P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,
(President)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member): (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Madhusoodanan Pillai
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of notice issued by opposite party dated 11/4/2017.
A2 : Acknowledgment Card.
A3 : Notice dated 23/12/2017.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to:-
1. Madhusoodanan Pillai,
Idanjayyathu Thekkethil, Koordmpala,
Pandalam – 689501.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Water Authority Office, Adoor - 691523.
(Set Ex parte on 29/10/2018)
3. Assistant Executive Engineer,
PH Division, Water Authority, Pathanamthitta.
(Set Ex parte on 29/10/2018)
4. The stock file.
