Kerala

Kollam

CC/06/18

Chandrika Devi,W/o.Raveendran.G,Vadakkeveetil Hou. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Asst. Exe. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority - Opp.Party(s)

R. Bahuleyan

12 May 2008

ORDER


C.D.R.F. KOLLAM : CIVIL STATION - 691 013
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::: KOLLAM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/06/18

Chandrika Devi,W/o.Raveendran.G,Vadakkeveetil Hou.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Asst. Exe. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority
Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY : President 2. RAVI SUSHA : Member 3. VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member

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.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER. This complaint is filed for quashing the bill dated 3..1..2006 and compensation. The water connection No.P.M.208 stands in the name of complainants deceased husband Sri.Raveendran.G., but never used to get adequate water. Repeated representations made by the complainant’s husband but not reacted by the opp.party. Complainant husband had remitted water charges till the month of May 1996. When the Titanium complex authorities started supplying water free of cost. Complainant’s husband sent a notice for the disconnection of service of opp.party. Opp.party not cared to do so. Meanwhile complainant’s husband expired on 1.12.99, on receipt of a bill dated 22.9.2004 for the amount of Rs.1989/- Complainant approached the officials of opp.party and convinced them that the complainant is not liable to pay amount and no further steps were taken by the opp.party. Opp.party sent a bill dated 3.1.2006 to the complainant demanding Rs.3003/- opp.party has nominees of right to demand the amount mentioned in the bill dated 3.1.2006. Hence this complaint. Opp.party remained absent. Hence he was set exparte. Complainant filed affidavit and exhibits were marked. The points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party 2. Compensation. As the opp.party remained absent. We are construed to relay upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. The complainant could prove his case through the complaint, affidavit and Exhibits marked. On perusal of the Exhibits we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. In the result the complaint is allowed. The bill dated 3.1.2006 is quashed by this order. The opp.party is directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and cost. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Dated this the 12th day of May, 2008




......................K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY : President
......................RAVI SUSHA : Member
......................VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member