IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of March, 2011
Filed on 06.07.10
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.136/10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Smt.Susamma Kuriakkose @ Sukosh, Kerala Water Authority,
Kollamparambil House, Rep.by its Ass.Exe.Engineer,
Convent Square, Public Health Sub Division,
Alappuzha. Alappuzha.
(By Adv.S.Naushad)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant case is as follows: - The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party bearing water connection No.AWS 7650/D. At the start, the monthly water charge was Rs.22/- (Rupees twenty two only), and it was enhanced to Rs.42/- (Rupees forty two only). And the complainant had remitted the water charge up to 31st December 2009. When matters stood thus, the complainant received a dated nil-demand notice issued by the opposite party. The said notice required the complainant to remit Rs.7201/-(Rupees seven thousand two hundred and one only) within 7 days, or else the complainant's water connection would be cut off. The complainant is not liable to pay Rs.314/-(Rupees three hundred and fourteen only) per month as water charge. The aforesaid amount of Rs.720l/-(Rupees seven thousand two hundred and one only) as projected by the opposite party to be remitted by the complainant is illegal. The opposite party caused indescribable mental agony to the complainant. Aggrieved by this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being sent, the opposite party turned up, and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has consumed 901KL water from January 2008 to September 2009. As such the complainant has to remit Rs.5104/-(Rupees five thousand one hundred four only) in surplus. That apart from November 2009 the water charge of the complainant is Rs.314/- (Rupees three hundred fourteen only). Thus the water charge of the complainant fell in arrears from July 2009. The amount from July 2009 to August 2008 is Rs.8477/-(Rupees eight thousand four hundred and seventy seven only). When meter reading was examined on 13th August 2010 the complainant's consumption of water went up to 1219 KL. From this, it is clear that the complainant is using water to the extent of the aforesaid arrears, the opposite party contends. The complaint is filed without any bonafides. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.
2. The complainant's evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant herself as PWl, and the documents Exbts Al to A2 were marked. On the side of the opposite party, the opposite party did not make it a point to cause anyone to mount the box, but a document was marked as Exbt B1.
3. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the complainant is liable to remit the amount as alleged by the opposite party?
(2) Compensation and cost?
4. We perused the Materials available on record. At the first blush itself, it appears that the version advanced by the opposite party is vague and indistinct. We made an anxious scrutiny of the complaint, version and the allied evidence brought on record by the parties. Going by Exbt A1 it is manifest that the complainant has remitted the water charge up to 31st December 2009. It is to be noted that the meter reading is to be taken in every six months. Strangely enough the opposite party has not a consistent case as to which ever time the reading was examined. The opposite party arrived on the conclusion that the complainant had been using 42.85KL water per month without any basis. It is worthwhile to note that no material worth a scrap of paper is forthcoming to prove the opposite party's contention. On a plain perusal of the materials brought on record by the opposite party, it is manifest that the assessment of the water charges or the manner in which the amount in question was arrived on has no sufficient materials to substantiate the same. We hold that the contentions put forth by the opposite party do not merit acceptance, which prima-facie appear implausible. Needless to say, the case advanced by the complainant stands sufficiently substantiated, more particularly so in as much as the complainant produced Exbts A1. We are least hesitant to hold that the conduct of the opposite party as to the issuance of the notice in question apparently appears anomalous rather unauthorized. We are of the strong view that in as much as, the opposite party without any requisite basis issued notice to the complainant claiming a huge amount as arrears of water charge, the service of the opposite party is deficient. No doubt, the opposite party inflicted enormous sufferings and tribulations to the complainant. Needless to say, the complainant is entitled to relief.
In the light of the aforesaid facts and findings, we hold that Exbt A2 demand notice issued to the complainant by the opposite party is void, and as such the same stands cancelled. We further hold that the opposite party is entitled to obtain from the complainant the water charge of Rs.42/-(Rupees forty two only) per month from January 2010 onwards if the same is not so remitted.
In the result the complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2011.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Susamma Kuriakkose (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The copy of the provisional Invoice Card
Ext. A2 - The copy of the Notice No.JS.1163/09
Evidence of the opposite party:-
Ext. B1 - The Consumer Ledger
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
