BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER C.C No.167/2009 Between Complainant : P.C.Mary, Arackal House, Opp.Syrian Catholic Bank, Moolamattom P.O, Idukki District. (By Adv: Shiji Joseph) And Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vydhyudhi Bhavan, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Deputy Chief Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Generation Circle, Moolamattom P.O, Idukki District. O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant was working at the IHEP School Moolamattom in the year 1987, the respondents allotted a Quarters bearing No.69 A, the complainant and her family were residing there. Husband of the complainant got the transfer as Postmaster in Moolamattom Post Office, was also allotted another quarters as F-42 B. Since the post office quarters was not fit for living, the complainant and her family continued to reside in the 69 A Quarters. So the 2nd opposite party issued a notice to the complainant on 22.07.2000 stating the ground of dual occupation of the Quarters. Another notice issued on 22.12.2000 to the complainant asking to vacate and remit the water charges from August 2000 to 31.12.2000. It is also demanded rent and water charges with interest. The complainant did not pay the same. Another Demand Notice for Rs.10,716/- towards the arrears of rent and interest was also issued. So the complainant filed a suit before the Munisiff Court Thodupuzha as O.S 34/05 and the case was transferred to Idukki. The Munisiff Court dismissed the suit stating that the complainant is liable to pay three times of the rent fixed as monthly rent for a period from 08/2000 to 01/02/2001. The complainant is ready and willing to pay the amount. But on 21.04.2009, the opposite party demanded Rs.19,236/- as rent arrears by a Notice. The complainant is not yet liable to pay the same and the petition is filed for getting a direction to issue a fresh bill as per the Judgement of the Munisiff Court Idukki.
2.The opposite party filed written version stating that the complainant is not a Consumer and this is not a consumer dispute. It is admitted that the opposite party allotted Quarters to the complainant. The Postmaster Sri. A.J. George, the husband of the complainant had not lodged any complaint against the fitness of the Quarters F- 42 at any point of time. It is admitted that the opposite party issued notices demanding vacant possession, rent, Penal rent, Interest etc. But she had not paid any amount as per Notices. As per the agreement between the complainant and the Board, the rate of interest is liable to be altered or enhanced by the Board at any time as per the rules brought into force. After the dismissal of the suit, the opposite party requested petitioner to remit the amount of penal rent and water charges and interest. But she did not turn up or remitting the amount.
3. Before going to the evidence the matter was heard from both parties. The matter in dispute is about the rent arrears of the complainant's Quarters issued by the opposite party. The matter was once decided by the Munisiff Court Idukki in vide order dated 29th July 2006 as O.S. No.54/05. The finding of the Munisiff Court is that the complainant is liable to pay three times of the rent fixed as monthly rent for the period from 08/2000 to 01/02/2001, which is penal rent and opposite parties are entitled to recover the amount from the petitioner and thus the suit was dismissed. The complainant never paid any amount in light of that Judgement.
So we think that the matter is once decided by a competitive Civil Court and there is no reason to interfere in the matter. Hence the petition is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 10th day of November, 2009 Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
Sd/- I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX : Nil
| 
