KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.316/10

JUDGMENT DATED 06..12..2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                    --  MEMBER

1.      The Executive Engineer,

Kerala Water Authoriy, Kollam.

2.      The Asst.Executive Engineer

          in charge of Anchalummoodu

          PH Sub Division

          Near Reserve Police Camp,                     --  APPELLANTS

          Kollam.

3.      The Asst.Engineer,

          Anchalummoodu PH Sub Division

Kerala Water Authority

          Near Reserve Police Camp,

          Kollam.

            (By Adv.C.Sudheeshkumar & Ors.)

                    Vs.

P.Sasidharan,

S/o Late Paramu,

Abhilash Bhavan,                                                  --  RESPONDENT

Murunthal-B Ward,

Perinad P.O, Kollam.

(By Adv.Cherunniyoor P.Sasidharan Nair)

                                              JUDGMENT                          

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER

          This appeal is preferred against the directions contained in the order dated 30.4.10 in CC.10/07 of CDRF, Kollam.  The opposite parties are the appellants herein.  By the impugned order, they are under directions to pay   a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs to  the complainant.

          2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he is having a water connection from the third opposite party vide Consumer No.T.K.825 and the connection was taken in the year  1991 and that he was regularly paying the water charges. It is his case that on 28.11.06 the third opposite party disconnected the water connection  to his premises without any notice and though he had remitted the amount of Rs.545/-  claimed by the third opposite party  the connection was not restored and alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs for the proceedings along with the direction to reconnect  the water connection with respect to Consumer No.T.K.825. 

          3.  The opposite parties in their version contended that the connection was disconnected due to non-payment of a sum of Rs.545/- towards water charges and consequent to the remittance of the amount, the water connection was given on 30.11.06 itself.   Submitting that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.   

          4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P5.  On the side of the opposite parties, the second opposite party was examined as DW1.   The opposite parties adduced no documentary evidence.  It is based on the said evidence that the forum below passed the impugned order.

          5. On hearing the  learned counsel for the appellants,  respondent  and also on perusing the records, we find that the complainant’s  case is that the water connection to his premises was disconnected without any notice and though he had remitted the amount on 29.11.06, the supply was not reconnected till filing of the complaint before the Forum.  Ext.P2  shows that a sum of Rs.545/- was  remitted on 29.11.06 by the complainant towards   Consumer No.T.K.825.  It is also seen that a lawyer notice had been sent on  7.12.06  demanding reconnection.  The opposite parties/appellants would  say that they had given reconnection on 30.11.06 which is stated in the version also.  But, in the appeal memorandum, the case of the appellants is that the supply was reconnected on 21.11.09.  It is noted that the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence before the forum below apart from the oral testimony of the second opposite party as DW1.  The appellant would argue that the copy register was produced along with the argument notes on 8.1.10.  We find that the date of reconnection noted in the version and in he appeal memorandum are different and the opposite parties though agreed to produce certain documents before the forum during cross examination the same were not produced before the forum.  It is also seen that a lawyer notice was sent by the complainant on 7.12.06 which shows that   till that time no reconnection was effected and the complaint was filed on 4.1.07 itself.  However, it is noted that after filing the complaint, the service connection was restored.  It is really un-becoming on the part of the opposite parties to say that they have given reconnection on 30.11.06.  If that be so, why a second reconnection was given on 21.11.09 is not explained.  We feel that the connection was given after filing the complaint before the forum, and the forum has ordered compensation and costs finding that  there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  We find that the forum below ordered Rs.10,000/- as compensation.  It seems that the same is on the higher side a sum of Rs.5,000/- will be just and proper to be awarded  as compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case.  However, the cost ordered by the forum below is sustained.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the above modification.   Thereby the appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amounts shall carry interest  at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment.  In the nature and circumstances of the present  appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR  --  MEMBER

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT