Kerala

StateCommission

A/2/2019

KERALA WATER AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI - Opp.Party(s)

ISSAC SAMUEL

03 Jun 2019

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL.NO.02/19

ORDER DATED:03.06.2019

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN          : PRESIDENT

SHRI. T.S.P MOOSATH                                             : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A                                            : MEMBER

                                               

1. The Assistant Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

Adoor-691 523.

                                                                                                : APPELLANTS

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

PH Division, Pathanamthitta.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Issac Samuel)

 

            Vs.

 

Madhusoodhanan Pillai,

Idanjayyathu Thekkethil,                                                  : RESPONDENT

Koordmpala, Pandalam-689 501.

                                   

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

          The opposite party in CC.76/18 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta is in appeal aggrieved by an order dated:30.10.2018 by which a complaint filed by the respondent has been allowed.  As per the order appealed against, Ext.A1 bill issued by the appellant has been set aside and a direction to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- and Rs.2000/- as costs to the respondent has been granted.  The complaint of the respondent before the District Forum was that the appellant had failed to make available sufficient water supply to the respondent, though the respondent had been granted a domestic water connection.  Though notice was issued to the respondents there was no response to the same.  Instead a bill for an amount of Rs.10542/- was issued to the respondent with a threat to initiate further action if the bill was not paid.  It was complaining of the said action that the respondent had approached the District Forum.

2.      Though the appellant received notice from the District Forum they remained exparte.  The District Forum permitted the respondent to adduce evidence, considered the evidence on record and set aside Ext.A1 bill and ordered compensation as stated above.

3.      The counsel for the appellant tried to persuade us to interfere with the order of the District Forum and to set aside at least the portion of the order awarding compensation to the respondent.  The counsel appearing for the respondent contended that even now the water supply has not been properly restored.

4.      We find from a perusal of the order of the District Forum that despite receipt of notice, the complainant had not entered appearance. Even in this appeal no material or evidence has been produced to support the contentions put forward that they had maintained the water supply.  We find District Forum has considered the issue in the proper perspective and that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the award of costs and compensation is fully justified.  We do not find any grounds to admit this appeal or to grant the reliefs sought for.  This appeal is therefore dismissed.

 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

 

T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

BEENAKUMARI.A  : MEMBER

VL.