By. Smt. Beena. M, Member:-
This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Brief facts of the case are given below:- The Complainant is the consumer of Kerala Water Authority, PH Sub Division, Sulthan Bathery bearing Consumer No.BNP1573/N. The Complainant had been paying the water charge since she availed the water connection. Usually, the Water Authority was issuing bill only for the quantity of water used by the consumer. The Complainant alleged that on 01/02/2016, when the Complainant was not at home, officials from the First Opposite Party came and disconnected the water connection without warning and removed the meter. Thereafter, on 04-02-2016, the Complainant had received a notice stating that the Complainant had to pay Rs.6,838/- towards the arrears from 18/04/2014 to 31/12/2015 and demanded to pay the amount within 15 days and otherwise they would initiate recovery proceedings. According to this, on 18/02/2016, the Complainant paid Rs.2,000/- and the Asst. Executive Engineer of water Authority granted time to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,838/-. But later, the First Opposite Party issued demand & disconnection notice, without restoring the water connection, charging bi-monthly water charge for unused water by the Complainant. As per these notices she was asked to pay arrears of Rs.30,007/- But the Complainant is not bound to settle the said bills. The Complainant paid Rs.2,000/- on 18/03/2016 out of Rs.6,838/- as per the notice sent on 04/02/2016. The Complainant Further stated that she is ready to remit the remaining amount of Rs.4,838/-as well as the statutory penalty till date. The Complainant has suffered loss of lakhs of money as the First Opposite Party disconnected the water connection without any information or notice and was unable to operate, the Hollow bricks business there. As the facts are so, the 3rd Opposite Party, the village officer took recovery action to collect the huge amount through the property of the complainant.
3. Therefore, the Complainant prayed for stay of the illegal proceedings to attach the property of the 3rd opposite party and allow a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for the sufferings due to the illegal disconnection.
4. After the admission of the Complaint, the Commission issued summons to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite parties No.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed version. Opposite Party No.3 did not appear and hence set them ex-parte.
5. The contentions of the First and Second Opposite Party are as follows:-
The First Opposite Party admitted that the water connection was taken by the Complainant for domestic purpose. He stated that he was used to give the bills at the appropriate time after taking meter readings for every two months. The bill amount was accumulated to Rs.6838/- up to 31-01-2015. The bi-monthly bill itself is a demand and disconnection notice as per Water Supply Regulation13(11) and It is submitted that the bill itself shall be deemed as a notice for disconnection effective from the day falling immediately after the due date of payment wherever payment is not made by the customer latest by the due date. Moreover, the Opposite Party informed directly to the Complainant, when the Complainant failed to pay the arrears. Upon this, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party and asked for instalments for payment of arrears and the Opposite Party granted 3 instalments. Then the Complainant paid first instalment on 18/03/2016 of Rs.2,000/-. But he has not remitted the balance amount of arrears and remaining bill amount. So, the Opposite Party disconnected the water supply on 29/07/2016. Thereafter, the Complainant submitted an application to reduce the arrears before the Adalath held at Sulthan Bathery office on 19/03/2018, the application was considered and decided to allow the Complainant to pay Rs.17,087/- out of Rs.23,661/- as one time settlement and the Complainant agreed to pay the amount on or before 31/03/2018. But the Complainant was not ready to pay the agreed amount on or before the due date. Hence, the Opposite Party issued Pre RR notice to the Complainant. There was no response from the side of the Complainant, then the Opposite Party submitted to the District Collector for Revenue Recovery proceedings. The Opposite Party contented that the allegation of the Complainant that due to the disconnection of water supply without prior notice caused to stop the work of the shop is not true. In the application submitted before the Adalath, the Complainant stated that the work of the Hollow- bricks establishment stopped due the accident happened to one Basheer. The matter is under the preference of the District Collector and hence, only after the proceeding of the District Collector, the Opposite Party could do anything in this matter. The second Opposite Party filed separate version stating that they had issued demand notice dated 19/11/2019 to the Complainant to realize an amount of Rs.29,714/- from the Complainant based on the requisition of the District Collector issued RRC No.2019/1914/12dated 03/10/2019 to realize the amount from the Complainant under section 7 and 34 of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act through the Village Officer. The second Opposite Party further stated that no further action was taken from the office of the Second Opposite Party and also stated that the Civil Court has no power to proceed with Revenue Recovery cases as per section 72 of Revenue Recovery act. Therefore, it is prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint.
6. When the case is posted for evidence, both the parties submitted that there was a chance of settlement, so the matter was referred to adalath on 12/11/2022. On that day, Complainant was absent, Opposite Party appeared through his counsel. Opposite Party submitted that the matter was settled between the parties before Amnesty adalath conducted on 04/11/2022. Here, Opposite Party has not produced any document to show that the matter was settled in adalath. Thereafter, the case was again referred to adalath on 24/12/2022. On that day, both the parties were absent. On perusal of record, it is found that registered notice was issued to Complainant on 26/04/2023. In spite of notice of this Commission, Complainant was absent on 29/05/2023. It is pertinent to mention that as per section 38(3)(c) of the
Consumer Protection Act 2019, the District Commission should decide the Complaint on merits if the Complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing.
7. The Complaint is filed for getting an order to restrain the Opposite Parties from realizing the amount. The disconnection of her water connection is illegal and thus she suffered huge financial damage. Here the Complainant admitted that she has some arrears towards the water charge. In this case, the Complainant has admitted that there is still money to be paid to the Opposite Party, and the Complainant cannot dispute that the action of the Opposite Party in disconnecting the connection was wrong or illegal. The demand notice received by the Complainant mentioned the period of disconnection if the amount is not paid by due date. The Commission is satisfied that the actions taken by the Opposite Party were legal and that the Complainant failed to prove her case. Moreover, the revenue recovery proceedings are a separate proceeding and the Complainant has the option to approach the district collector for relief. Here it is pertinent to note that the 3rd Opposite Party is only a Village officer who has the duty to execute the order of the District Collector who is the authority of revenue recovery and the District Collector is not made a party array in this case. The Complainant is failed to prove that the disconnection of water affected the business of the hollow bricks. There is no evidence available to satisfy the Commission that the Complainant had suffered huge loss and difficulties. Moreover, the Opposite Party has submitted that the matter has been settled with the Complainant. But to disprove this submission of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has not appeared before this Commission with corroborating evidence during subsequent postings of the Complaint. In this circumstance we cannot attribute deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Complaint is dismissed without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 23rd day of June 2023.
Date of Filing:-25.01.2020.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
