Kerala

Kollam

CC/05/323

Usha Devi, Sajeev Pharmacy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant Engineer, Water Authority and Others - Opp.Party(s)

A. Thajudeen

02 Nov 2007

ORDER


KOLLAM
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/05/323

Usha Devi, Sajeev Pharmacy
Muhammed Hussain, S/o. K.M.Meerankhan,Master Jewellers
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Assistant Engineer, Water Authority and Others
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Authority, Punalur,Kollam
The Managing Director, Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K.VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARI 2. RAVI SUSHA

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY, PRESIDENT. The complaint filed by the complainant against the opp.party paying to quash the addition bill. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The 2nd complainant is the tenant of shop room belonging to the first complainant. He is conducting a jewellery there from 1994 onwards. There is a water connection in the above shop room for which he is regularly paying the rent. The opp.party issued a notice demanding Rs.38536/- being the arrears of water charge for the period from1990 to 8/2005. The Opp.parties have no right to realise the amount shown in the notice as the claim is barred by limitation and hence complainant prays to quash the bill.. The opp.parties were duly served and they entered appearance and filed version but subsequently remained absent and hence they were set exparte. There after the complainant filed affidavit, Ext.P1 was also marked on the side of the complainant. According to the complainant Ext.P1 bill is illegal as the same is for realizing a claim partly barred by limitation. It is not specified in the bill the amount due for each month. Even assuming that the bill for the last 6 months may be realized that amount cannot be separated from Ext.P1. The manner in which Ext.P1 is prepared and issued itself would reveal the gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties . Hence we are inclined to quash the bill . In the result the complaint is allowed, quashing the Ext.P1 bill. The opp,parties are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and cost to the complainant. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2007. K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY: Sd/- ADV. RAVI SUSHA ; Sd/- Forwarded/by Order, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT. I N D E X List of witness for the complainant P1. – Notice for Rs.38536/- dt. 16.8.05




......................K.VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARI
......................RAVI SUSHA