Kerala

StateCommission

27/2006

Asst.Exe.Engineer - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mathai Devasya - Opp.Party(s)

V.S.Hareendranath

31 Aug 2009

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. 27/2006

Asst.Exe.Engineer 		...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Mathai Devasya		 ...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


For the Appellant :


For the Respondent :




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
    VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM                                                                             
                                                 APPEAL No.27/06
                             JUDGMENT DATED 31.8.09
 
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU           -- PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN              -- MEMBER
 
Assistant Executive Engineer,
P.H.Sub division,
Kerala Water Authority,                                           -- APPELLANT
Changanassery.
    (By Adv.V.S.Hareendranath)
 
                   Vs.
 
Mathai Devasya,
Kunnanthara House,                                                -- RESPONDENT
Malakunnamkara, Kuruchi village,
Changanassery Taluk, Kottayam Dist.                                                                              
 
                                                                                 JUDGMENT
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT
 
            The appellant is the opposite party/Water Authority in OP.49/05 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The bill issued by the opposite party for a sum of Rs.6332/- stands cancelled and the opposite party/appellant is also directed to pay cost of Rs.500/-.
          2. The complainant has sought for setting aside the impugned bill on the ground that has been levied with commercial tariff whereas according to him he is liable to pay the rates under domestic tariff. The Forum has up-held the contention of the complainant that he was not using water supply by the appellant for commercial purposes. The counsel for the appellant has pointed out that setting aside the bill as such is not proper as the appellant has got every right to levy the bill at least under the domestic tariff.  
          3. We find that the counsel for the appellant is perfectly correct. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside. The appellant is directed to issue bill for the water consumed under domestic tariff. The rest of the order is sustained. The appellant will issue fresh bill under domestic tariff and complainant will be liable to pay fresh bill in place of the disputed bill and the complainant will pay the same in time. 
          The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
 
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
 
 
 
                                       VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER
 
 
 



......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU