KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 583/2022

JUDGMENT DATED: 12.12.2022

(Against the Order in C.C. 151/2021 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN    : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

The Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Public Health Division, Observatory Hills, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 033.

                   (By Advs. Issac Samuel and Chitra Nimmy)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Nazeer A., T.C. No. 50/1088-5, Vellayani Junction, Nemom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 020.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the Kerala Water Authority, the opposite party in C.C. No. 151/2021 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (District Commission for short).  The complaint was filed by the respondent herein alleging that the water bill that was served on him was exorbitant and that he had not used the quantity of water for which the bill was issued.  In the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party, i.e; the Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Karamana Section Office, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.  Though notice was served, the Executive Engineer did not appear or file version within the statutory time limit.  The complainant therefore filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 document.  The complaint has thereafter been allowed ex-parte. This appeal is filed against the said order. 

2.  This appeal comes up before us for admission.  According to the counsel for the appellant, there is no Executive Engineer in the Karamana office of the Water Authority.  It was for the said reason that the Executive Engineer did not appear.  It is stated that, the Executive Engineer is stationed at a different address.  Therefore the counsel contends that this appeal is only to be admitted and remanded after setting aside the order appealed against, for fresh consideration.

3.  Heard.  It is not in dispute that, the notice issued by the District Commission was served at the address shown in the order appealed against.  In other words, the notice was served at the Karamana Section office of the Kerala Water Authority.  If that was not the office in which the Executive Engineer is available, it was the duty of the officer of the Kerala Water Authority at the said office to forward the said notice to the Executive Engineer, wherever he was available.  The officers sitting at the Karamana section office cannot wash their hands off and contend that the Executive Engineer was not available at the said office.  The authority is the Kerala Water Authority on whom notice has been served.  Every employee is duty bound to safeguard the interests of the organization in which he is working.  He cannot shirk the said responsibility.  The Executive Engineer is a superior officer and notice issued to the said officer cannot be ignored on the ground that his address shown in the notice was not correct.  They could have redirected the notice to the correct address when it was brought by the postal authorities or they should have, after receiving the same forwarded it to the Executive Engineer concerned.  The omission to do so is a serious act of indiscipline which has caused the Water Authority an opportunity to contest the complaint.  They have not filed their version within the time limit as a consequence.  In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 the opposite party has no right to file version after the expiry of the statutory time limit.  In such circumstances, the duty of the District Commission was to proceed to dispose of the complaint on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant.  That was the procedure followed by the District Commission.  For the above reasons, we find no infirmity in the order of the District Commission. 

We find no grounds to admit this appeal.  This appeal is accordingly dismissed. 

The amount of statutory deposit remitted, shall be refunded to the appellants, on proper acknowledgment. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                         T.S.P. MOOSATH  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                      RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                                                                    BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

jb                                                                                                       RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER