Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                     The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting a relief from the opposite party.

                    2. The case of the complainant is stated as follows: The complainant is the consumer of the opposite party for the last 30 years.  His Con.No.is KZD/255/D from Kerala Water Authority for his domestic connection.  According to him, he availed the above said water connection only up to 2011 subsequently he shifted this house.  On October 2011 he understood that the water meter of the complainant has not been working properly and the said matter is reported to opposite party in time.  Even though he filed a petition to that effect, no action has been taken from the side of opposite party.  He again stated that from March 2012 onwards.  He was not used the water from opposite party.  Meanwhile, on February 2013 two water bill for an amount of Rs.30,000/-, Rs.40,000/- respectively sent to the complainant. In the light of the above said bills the complainant approached the opposite party and enquires about the details.  The opposite party replied that the said bill fetched to this level because of the fault of the meter and the matter can be settle in the next sitting of the opposite party’s adalath.  On 02.12.2014 and on 13.02.2015 the complainant filed 2 separate petitions before the Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvalla for resolving this matter.  As a result of this complaint, the Executive Engineer, Thiruvalla referred this matter to Water Authority, P.H. Circle Revenue Adalth of 2014-15 and by the recommendation of the Executive Engineer an amount of Rs.34,000/- was arrived as an adalath settlement.  Though the matter is settled like this the complainant was not fully satisfied, so that he wants to get the reason of the adalath settlement etc.  The complainant did not comply the adalath settlement hence on 12.06.2015 the opposite party issued a disconnection notice to the complainant. According to the complainant, all the above act of the complainant’s are comes under grave deficiency of service of the opposite party and the opposite party is liable to the complainant and the opposite party has to pay compensation to the complainant for the illegal acts.  The above said complainant filed this complaint before this Forum along with documents.  Apart from this complaint, the complainant filed an I.A.No.85/15 for directing the opposite party to reinstate the water connection of the complainant.  This Forum heard the complainant’s counsel and peruse the records and affidavits filed in support of the case and an interim order is allowed subject to certain conditions.  This Forum duly served notice to the opposite party and the notice is accepted by the opposite party, but failed to appear before this Forum.  Hence on 03.11.2015 the opposite party was declared exparte and the case posted for exparte evidence.

                   3. We peruse the pleadings of the complainant’s records and framed the following issues:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
3. Regarding relief and costs?

         4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant’s son is examined as PW1and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked.  Ext.A1 is the letter dated 02.12.2014 sent by the complainant to opposite party.  Ext.A2 is another letter dated 13.02.2015 sent by the complainant to opposite party.  Ext.A3 is the Water Authority Adalath dated 27.02.2015.  Ext.A4 is the disconnection notice dated 12.06.2015. Ext.A5 is the bill dated 23.01.2016 for Rs.2,30,677/-.

          5. According to PW1 in chief he deposed that his father is so aged and suffering diseases and he is bedridden also.  According to him, as per his direction he deposed before this Forum.  He categorically deposed that the complainant remitted the water authority bill up to 2011 and due to the fault of the water meter the complainant complained to the opposite party but no action has been taken from the side of opposite party.  He further deposed that since March 2012 the complainant has not been used the water from the opposite party and the issuance of bill amount of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.40,000/- are also illegal.  In order to substantiate his case, the complaint dated 02.12.2014 to opposite party and the complaint dated 13.02.2015 to the opposite party are marked as Exts.A1 and A2 respectively.  The water authority adalath dated 27.02.2015 and disconnection notice dated 12.02.2015 are also marked as Exts.A3 and A4 respectively.  Ext.A5 bill dated 16.01.2016, was issued after the filing of this petition.  As per this bill, the bill an amount of Rs.2,30,677/- is shown as arrears and an amount of Rs.2,05,597/- is an additional amount.  In Ext.A5, it is stated that, ‘Court Case is pending’. 

                   6. In this case, the opposite party is already declared exparte as stated earlier hence the evidence adduced by PW1 is unchallengeable as far as the opposite party is concerned.  After the closing of complainant’s evidence, we have given opportunity to the complainant to heard this case.

                   7. Point Nos.1 to 3:-  For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 to 3 together.  When we peruse the complaint and PW1’s chief examination and the records produced on complainant’s side, it is easy to come to a conclusion that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite party is a service provider.  Hence Point No.1 found accordingly.  It is already stated earlier that the complainant filed this case for getting relief against the opposite party for the deficiency in service.  It is clear that from the available evidence adduced by the complainant it can be seen that the complainant used the water of the opposite party only up to March 2012.  The complainant in his complaint and the PW1 in his chief examination this fact is categorically stated.  It is also proved that on October 2011 itself the complainant understood that the water meter installed in the premises of the complainant’s house was not properly functioning and the said meter was faulty.  It is also evident to see that as a responsible customer of the opposite party he filed two petitions regarding his grievances to opposite party through Exts.A1 and A2. Even if the complainant filed this petitions the opposite party has not taken any action or not even sent a reply to this petition.  When we believe the chief examination of PW1 it can be seen that whenever the complainant approached the opposite party one way or other, the opposite party evaded to entertain his petition and tried to escape from it.  As per Ext.A3, it is to see that an adalath was taken place and in that adalath a decision for payment was also taken.  It is true that as per Ext.A3, the amount of Rs.34,000/- has not been seen.  However, in the bottom of Ext.A3 it is stated that an instalment is allowed by the concerned executive engineer.  Considering all these evidences we can come to a conclusion and take an inference in favour of the complainant with regard to Ext.A3 adalath decision of Rs.34,000/-.  The interim order issued by this Forum in I.A.No.85/15 in this case is for the reinstatement of the water connection subject to the remittance of ¹/3^rd of adalath amount of Rs.34,000/- and further directed the complainant to purchase a new water meter and entrust it with to the opposite party.  The complainant filed an affidavit to the effect that he purchased a new water meter and the same is entrusted to the opposite party and the said water meter is properly functioning in his house premises.  It is true that the complainant has clearly deposed that he was not even agreeing the adalath decision as per Ext.A3.  But subsequently, at the pendency of this petition before this Forum he stated that if an instalment has been allowed for the payment in his favour the complainant is ready to comply the adalath decision.  Anyway, from the available evidence it is difficult to come to a conclusion that who is the actual defaulter of the adalath decision.  The complainant is liable to pay the adalath amount arrived as per Ext.A3.  In the light of this finding, we are not in a position to accept the genuineness of Ext.A5 bill issued in pendency of this petition.  The opposite party is bound to follow the new meter reading and the opposite party has to calculate the bill as per the new meter reading.  In the light of the above discussion, we find that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service against the complainant and the opposite party is liable to the complainant.  Hence the Point No.2 and 3 are also found accordingly.

                   8. In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. The opposite party is directed to receive the adalath amount as per Ext.A3 from the complainant within 1 week from the date of receipt of this order after reducing the received amount as per the Order in I.A.No.85/15 in this case. 

2. The opposite party is at liberty to issue water bill on the basis of the newly installed water meter as per the Order in I.A.No.85/15.

3. The opposite party is also directed to drop all further proceedings as per Ext.A5 bill.

4. Considering the nature and circumstances of this case there is no order for cost and compensation in this case. 

        Declared in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of March, 2016.

                                                                                (Sd/-)

                                                                P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,       

                                                                                      (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)       :   (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)          :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Renjith Mathew

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Letter dated 02.12.2014 issued by the complainant to opposite party. 

A2 :  Letter dated 13.02.2015 issued by the complainant to opposite party.

A3  :  Water Authority Adalath dated 27.02.2015. 

A4 :   Disconnection notice dated 12.06.2015. 

A5 :   Bill dated 23.01.2016 for Rs.2,30,677/-.   

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:  Nil.

                                                                                            (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) T.V. Mathew, Thayyil Veedu, Railway Station P.O.,

                    Thiruvalla – 689 111.

               (2) The Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority,

                    Thiruvalla – 689 111.

               (3) The Stock File.