DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of September 2010 .
Present : Smt. Seena.H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.77/2010
Smt. Soudha
W/o. Late M.K.K. Moideen
11/666, Hotel Tasty
Sultanpet
Palakkad - Complainant
(Adv.K.R. Nair & Adv .T.S. Anitha)
Vs
The Assistant Execuive Engineer
Kerala Water Authoity
P H Sub Division
Kalmandapam
Palakkad. - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
Brief facts of the complaint is as follows.
The complainant is running a Hotel by name “Hotel Tasty” at Palakkad. She is the licensee of the hotel Tasty to which water supply was given by Kerala Water Authority under the Consumer number PKD/1666/N. The complainant had been paying the bill till 20/11/2008 and the water supply is only for 4 hours daily. So the complainant was forced to avail major part of required water from the borewell. The complainant has used the water supply from the opposite party for the purpose of drinking only and the other aspects like cleaning taking water from the bore well. The opposite party has not issued consumer bill since 20/11/2008. The opposite party has disconnected the water supply to the hotel on 28/11/2009 without any intimation or notice to the Complainant. The act of opposite party amounts to much inconvenience and hardship to the complainant. The complainant stated that the water being the most important essence of the life and of the business of running a hotel, the disconnection has resulted in much hardship to her. So the Opposite party has clearly caused deficiency in service. Further the complainant stated that
- 2 -
running of the Hotel is the only source of income and livelihood of the complainant and her family. Thereafter the complainant issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party for restoration of water connection. The opposite party was not replied. Hence the complainant prays to restore the water connection to the complainant’s Hotel Tasty and to make the payment of Rs.15,000/- as the damages and mental suffering caused to the complainant and to pay the cost of the proceedings.
Notice was served to the opposite party and absent before the Forum. Hence Opposite party was set ex-parte. Complainant filed affidavit and documents. Exhibit A1 and A2 marked on the side of the complainant.
Issues to be considered are:
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
If so what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to?
Issues I & II
The Complainant stated that she is the licensee of the Hotel to which water supply was given by Kerala Water Authority under the Consumer number PKD/1666/N and she had been paying the bill till 20/11/2008. We perused relevant documents on record. But the complainant has not produced documentary evidence to show the Consumer number and the bill for paying the water charges. Further the complainant submitted that running of the Hotel is the only source of income and livelihood of the complainant and her family. Thus the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. According to Exhibit A1 the complainant sent a lawyer notice dated 26/12/2009 to the opposite party for restoring the water supply. According to Exhibit A2, the Opposite party has received the lawyer notice on 28/12/2009. The Complainant stated that the opposite party has not replied and not restored the water supply. Thereafter the complainant has filed this complaint and the notice was served to the opposite party.
- 3 -
The Opposite party has received the notice on 08/06/2010. But the Opposite party was not present before the Forum. Neither any version nor any affidavit filed by the Opposite party. On appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances of the case we find that the water supply was disconnected by the opposite party on 28/11/2009. In the present case the complainant stated that the Opposite party has not issued any consumer bill since 20/11/2008 and the water supply was disconnected on 28/11/09 without any intimation or any notice. According to 13 (b) of Kerala Water Supply Regulation: the Authority may also fix the monthly rate of water charges of a consumer based on his average consumption of water for any previous six months in the case of existing connections and based on the estimated consumption in the case of new connections and issue a provisional card in Form No. VIII indicating therein the amount of water charges payable by the consumer every month, the date of payment and the institution at which the amount is to be remitted.
The Opposite party has not filed version and affidavit. No evidence was produced by the Opposite party to show Form No. VIII shall be issued to the complainant. The water being the most important essence of life and of the business of running the hotel. Also the complainant submitted that she has availed water from bore well for cleaning the Hotel.
The complainant stated that she had been paying the bill till 20/11/2008 and the opposite party has disconnected the water supply on 28/11/2009. Therefore the Complainant has defaulter in paying the water bill as more than one year. The complainant has not produced the receipt of paying the water bill. In fact the complainant failed to pay the water bill as per the water supply Regulation. But the Opposite party has not replied or restored the water connection in accordance to the lawyer notice. Also the opposite party has not filed the version and affidavit.
According to Section 45 of Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act:- Power to cut off water supply – clause(1) (a) if any tax, fee, rental, cost of water or any charge or other sum due under this Act, is not paid within a period of thirty days after service of a bill for the same. The complainant stated that the opposite party has not sent bill to the cost of water or any charge to her. No documentary evidence was produced by the Opposite party to show sent bill to the complainant. The Opposite party has not present before the Forum
- 4 -
after receiving the notice. In view of the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party for non availability of water to the Complainant’s Hotel. Hence the complaint allowed.
We direct the opposite party to restore the water connection to the Complainant’s Hotel Tasty within one month from the date of receipt of order and to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation to the mental sufferings and pay Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceedings. If the opposite party failed to restore the water connection within the ordered period an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the complainant. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on the 28th day of September 2010
PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
APPENDIX
Date of filing : 03/06/2010
Witness examined on the side of Complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of Opposite party
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext. A1 – Copy of letter dated 26/12/2009
2. Ext. A2 - Acknowledgement card
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party
Nil
Forums Exhibits
Nil
Cost (allowed)
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of proceedings
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Civil Station, Palakkad – 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011
Present : Smt.Seena.H, President
: Smt.Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.77/2010
Soudha
W/o. Late M.K.K.Moideen
11/666, Hotel Tasty
Sultanpet
Palakkad - Complainant
Vs
The Assistant Executive Engineer
Kerala Water Authority
P H Sub Division
Kalmandapam
Palakkad. - Opposite party
(By Adv.K.Raghu)
O R D E R
By Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Complaint was remanded back to the forum by Hon'ble State Commission to permit opposite party to file version and contest the matter. The order of the forum was set aside on condition that opposite party should pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to complainant or deposit the same before the forum.
Counsel for the opposite party represented and sought time for payment of cost. Further on the next posting counsel submitted that they are not proceeding with the case.
Since the condition in the order of Hon'ble State Commission not complied, complaint not further taken on file.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of January, 2011
Sd/-
Seena.H
President
Sd/-
Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
