N THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of November , 2011
Filed on 04-11-2008
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.259/2008
Between
Complainant :- | Opposite party:- |
Smt. Ratna Bai, D/o Lekshmikutty Amma, Anchilkandam, Amayida, Ambalapuzha, Alappuzha. (By Adv.Rajesh. P, Alappuzha) | 1.Kerala Water Authority,Represented by its Secretary, Jala Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer’s Office, Kerala water Authority, Alappuzha. (Adv. S.Naushad, Haripad) |
O R D E R
(SRI.JIMMY KORAH,PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case in a nutshell is as follows:- The complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties bearing consumer No.AMB79/N. The water supply to the said connection was severed in August 1990, in line with the request of the complainant. The complainant had paid off the entire water charges till the time of disconnection the water supply. Strangely yet, the 2nd opposite party issued a demand notice dated 28th September 1998 calling upon the complainant to pay arrears of water charges. Pursuant to which the complainant went to the opposite parties' premise and impressed upon them the factum of disconnection of the complainant's water supply in 1990. To the complainant's astonishment, yet again on 23 rd February 2001,19th January 2004& 31st July 2007, the opposite parties issued different bills to the complainant. The complainant caused to send legal notice elaborating the entire facts as to the material water connection. Notwithstanding this, the opposite parties over again issued several notices and bills, the last one being dated 4th April 2008. The complainant has paid off all the charges to the opposite parties. The opposite parties' sending of unnecessary notices and bills caused humiliation and mental agony to the complainant. The service of the opposite parties is absolutely deficient. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notices being served, the 2nd opposite party turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the water connection of the complainant has never been cut off. As per the records available with the opposite parties, the complainant is liable to pay an amount ofRs.126912/-(Rupees One lakh twenty six thousand nine hundred and twelve only ), the 2nd opposite party contends. According to the opposite party, the complaint has no basis and the same is liable to be dismissed.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant's sister and the documents Exbts Al to A14 were marked. The commission reports were marked as Exbts Cl &C2 on the side of the opposite parties, except filing version no evidence has been let in.
4. Taking into account the contentions of the parties, the issues that come up for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the complainant's water connection is severed?
(2) Whether the complainant is liable to pay the water charge as demanded
opposite parties?
5. We carefully perused the complaint, version and other materials placed on record by the parties. At the first blush itself, it imparts an impression that the opposite party has filed a version perfunctorily, only to satisfy an idle formality. Going by the contentions of the complainant, the complainant asserts that the water connection provided by the opposite parties was detached way back in 1990. Amazingly still, the opposite parties issued umpteen bills till 2008. The crux of the opposite parties' contention is that the opposite parties have not cut off the water supply of the complainant . As per the records available with them the complainant is liable to pay water charge to the tune of Rs.126912/-(Rupees One lakh twenty six thousand nine hundred and twelve only ) to the opposite_parties. Bearing the conflicting contentions of the parties, we effected a meticulous analysis of the materials available on record before us. On a perusal of the Exbt C2 commission report, it is unfurled that there was no water connection or meter in the complainant premise. In this context, the contention of the opposite parties that the material water connection was not detached does not hold water. When there is no water connection, the arises no question of using any water from the opposite party. When there is non-existence of water connection and non-consumption of water, the complainant is not liable to pay any water charge to the opposite party. It is crucial to notice that the opposite parties have not even put up a case forcefully in its favor. As we have already observed on filing a perfunctory version, the opposite party does not make it a point to adduce any evidence challenging the complainant’s case. We necessarily feel that no circumstance is there to elaborate any further. It goes without saying that the opposite parties' service is deficient and the complainant is entitled to relief.
6. In view of the facts and findings of the discussions made herein above, the entire bills issued by the opposite parties stand cancelled. Further, the 2nd opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only ) to the complamant. The Opposite parties shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.
In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to cost
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November , 2011.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Letter dated 28/08/1998 from opposite party to Complainant
Ext.A2 - Acknowledgement Card
Ext.A3 - Letter dated 19-01-2004
Ext.A4 - Consumer Bill dated 31/07/2005
Ext.A5 - Notice
Ext.A6 -Tapal Receipt
Ext.A7 -Acknowledgement Card
Ext.A8 - Postal Card dated 28/06/06
Ext.A9 - Postal Card dated 27/03/07
Ext.A10 -Letter dated 04/04/08
Ext.A11 - Letter dated 31/10/08
Ext.A12 -Letter dated 27/05/2010
Ext.A13 -Letter dated 09/11/2010
Ext. A14 - Special Power Attorney
Ext.C1 - Commission Report of Sri. Arun. M. Kuruvila
Ext.C2 - Commission Report
Evidence of the opposite parties – Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by sh/-
Compared by -
