Kerala

Wayanad

CC/136/2017

C.Sudhakaran, Arun Nivas, Manjappara, Ambalavayal Post - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant Executive Engineer, P.H Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority, Sulthan Bathery - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jan 2018

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CIVIL STATION ,KALPETTA
WAYANAD-673122
PHONE 04936-202755
 
Complaint Case No. CC/136/2017
 
1. C.Sudhakaran, Arun Nivas, Manjappara, Ambalavayal Post
Manjappara
Wayanad
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Assistant Executive Engineer, P.H Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority, Sulthan Bathery
Sulthan Bathery
Wayanad
Kerala
2. Kerala Water Authority, P.H Sub Division, Sulthan Bathery
Sulthan Bathery
Wayanad
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Renimol Mathew MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 29 Jan 2018
Final Order / Judgement

By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

 

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Parties to restore the water connection in consumer No.ABU/537/D owned by the Complainant, to pay Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards losses sustained to the Complainant, to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- as loss to the Complainant.

 

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant was given a water connection by the Opposite party wide consume No.ABU/537/D and the Complainant was remitting the water connection charges promptly. In some days, there was no water supply in the pipe. The levying of water charges are not in proportion to the water used by the complainant. The meter was defective and the Complainant lodged a complainant with Sub – divisional Asst. Executive Engineer, Sulthan Bathery regarding the wrong reading and excess bill based on wrong reading . On 22.12.2016, the officials from Assistant Executive Engineer came to the house of the Complainant in his absence and disconnected the water connection and taken away the meter after giving a notice stating that a sum of Rs.5,130/- is to be paid towards water charges. No enquiry was conducted by the Opposite Parties in the petition submitted by the complainant prior to disconnection. The Opposite Parties not made any enquiry in the matter and not replaced the defective meter. The Opposite parties demanded double the amount of charges from the Complainant towards water charges which the complainant was actually not used. The act of Opposite Parties are clear deficiency of service from their side. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.

 

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties admitted that the Complainant is a consumer of Opposite Party. But contented that the Complainant was not regular in remitting water charges. The allegation of non-getting of water supply is denied by the Opposite Party. The Complainant was using the water very lavishly. The complaint is liable to pay the slab rate and the rate as per usage also. If there is any defect in the meter, the Complainant is liable to remove the meter through a licensed plumber and entrust the Opposite Parties for any repair. This aspect is very clearly stated in the agreement entered in to by the Complainant and the water authority. The officials of Opposite Party inspected the meter and not found any defect in it. The Excess usage of water only increased the water charges and nothing also as alleged. The Opposite Parties admitted that the water connection was disconnected on 22.12.2016. There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties.

 

4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

 

5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and the Complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 documents are marked. Opposite parties not adduced any oral evidence but produced their documents which are marked as Exts.B1 to B17. Ext.A1 series are the demand notices, Ext.A2 document is the receipt for the payment of Rs.780/- on 21.03.2016. Ext.B1 is the copy of agreement between the Complainant and the Opposite Party, Ext.B2 is the connection order copy dated.08.07.99, Ext.B3 is the water connection work order, Ext.B4 is the copy of application for water connection, Ext.B5 is the coy of ownership certificate, Ext.B6 is the copy of plan. Ext.B7 is the copy of application for meter testing, Ext.B8 is the copy of consumer DCB, Ext.B9 is the copy of consumer ledger bill details, Ext.B10 is the copy of reading details, Ext.B11 is the coy of disconnection details, Ext.B12 is the copy of ledger remarks and orders, Ext. B13 is the consumer ledger adjustment details, Ext.B14 is the demand and payment details, Ext.B15 is the copy of payment details, Ext.B16 is the copy of payment details, Ext.B17 is the copy of latest bill details. The case of Complainant is that the meter supplied by the Opposite Parties is faulty and the charges are levied not in proportion to the water used. The case of complainant is that the Complainant informed this to the opposite parties by giving a complaint. But without any enquiry, the officials of Opposite parties disconnected the water supply and taken away the meter. The case of Opposite parties is that the Complainant was not regular in remitting water charges and the Complainant was using water excessively. The Opposite parties contended that there is no defect in the meter. If there is any complaint in the meter clause 13 of the agreement entered in to between the Complainant and the Opposite parties is applicable. The excess usage of water alone increased the water charges. On going through the Ext.B1 agreement, it is found that in clause 13 of the agreement, it is stated that “If any mistake in the working of the meter is noticed, the supplier will intimate the fact to the consumer and the defective meter should be repaired and replaced by the consumer at his expense. Here, the Complainant states that he had noticed defect in the meter and duly intimated the Opposite Parties by giving a petition to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Sulthan Bathery. But no inspection or enquiry was done by the Opposite Parties and disconnected the water supply. It is seen that the complainant not followed the conditions stated in clause 12 of the Ext.B1 agreement. On perusal of records, it is found that there is no material or evidence before the forum to show that the meter is faulty and the meter reading is wrong. Without proving these aspects, the Forum cannot come to a conclusion that the water bills issued by the Opposite Parties are excessive or not. There is no material before the Forum to access whether the water charges are in proportionate to the usage of water or not. It is seen that the main prayer in the complaint is that to restore the water connection. As per order in IA 270/2017 by the forum, the water connection owned by the complainant is already restored. The complainant not produced any document to prove the loss sustained to him by the act of Opposite parties. Therefore, on an over all evaluation of the evidence and records placed by the parties the forum found that the complainant miserably failed to prove his case. The forum did not find any deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties. Point No.1 found accordingly.

 

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found against the Complainant, the complaint is not entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. The Opposite Parties can release the amount of Rs.5,130/- (Rupees Five thousand One hundred and Thirty) only deposited by the complainant towards arrears of water charges from the Forum.

 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of January 2018.

Date of Filing:01.07.2017.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

 

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

 

APPENDIX.

 

Witnesses for the complainant:

 

PW1. Sudhakaran. Complainant.

 

Witness for the Opposite Parties :

 

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

 

A1 series (6 Nos) Demand and Disconnection Notice.

A2. Receipt. dt:13.04.2016.

 

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

 

B1. Copy of Agreement for the Supply of Water. dt:08.07.1999.

B2. Copy of Connection Order. dt:08.07.99.

B3. Copy of Water/Sewer Connection work order. dt:03.06.99.

B4. Copy of Application for Sewer/Water Connection.

B5. Copy of Certificate. dt:03.04.98.

B6. Copy of Detailed Plan showing the proposed water connection

to building No.AP V/515.

B7. Copy of Application for Meter Testing. dt:25.06.1999.

B8. Consumer DCB.

B9. Consumer Ledger- Bill Details.

B10. Consumer Ledger- Reading Details.

B11. Consumer Ledger- Disconnection Details.

B12. Consumer Ledger – Remarks and Orders.

B13. Consumer Ledger- Adjustment Details.

B14. Consumer Ledger- Demand and Payment.

B15. Consumer Ledger- Payment Details.

B16. Consumer Ledger- Payment details.

B17. Consumer Ledger- Latest Bill. dt:23.05.2017.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Renimol Mathew]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery]
MEMBER

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.