Kerala

Kasaragod

C.C.No.24/2006

T.U.Ahamed Kunhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Asst.Executive Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

30 Dec 2008

ORDER


IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CDRF,Fort Road,Kasaragod
consumer case(CC) No. C.C.No.24/2006

T.U.Ahamed Kunhi
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Asst.Executive Engineer
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.P.Shymaladevi 3. P.Ramadevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. T.U.Ahamed Kunhi

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. The Asst.Executive Engineer

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

Date of filing : 25-02-06. Date of order : 17-11-08. IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.24/06 Dated this, the 17th day of November 2008. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER T.U.Ahamed Kunhi, S/o.Umbu, Thalangara Kadavath, } Complainant Po.Thalangara, Kasaragod.671121. 1. The Asst.Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Vidyanagar, Kasaragod. 671 123. } Opposite parties 2. The Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authrotity, Vidyanagar, Kasaragod. 671 123. O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ,PRESIDENT The grievance of the complainant T.U.Ahammed Kunhi is that the opposite parties are trying to recover water connection charges from him through Revenue Recovery proceedings. According to him he is not liable to meet the demand of opposite parties since his water supply connection was disconnected in 1992 and the claim is up to March 2005. He also prays for an order for restoration of water supply connection No.K.1186/D. 2. The opposite party contends that the water supply connection to the house of complainant was disconnected only on 04-03-05 and the amount claimed is towards the water supply charges till date of disconnection. 3. Complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim and Exts A1 to A5 marked. For opposite parties Gopalan presently holding the post of Ist opposite party filed affidavit. Ext.B1 marked. Both sides were heard at length and the documents perused carefully. 4. According to complainant the water supply connection provided to his house has been disconnected in 1992. But opposite parties stated that the connection was not disconnected till 04-03-05. In support of their contentions Ext.B1 produced. Ext.B1 is the water meter reading register to show the quantity of water supplied to consumer during the period from 11/98 to 3/05. It shows that only minimum charges are calculated through out the period. It no where shows the consumption of water. Hence the contention of opposite parties that the water connection was disconnected only on 4-3-05 appears to be note true. Had the connection been live during the period of Ext.B1 i.e. from 11/98 to 3/05 then there would have been signs of consumption of water in the meter reading register, since there is no allegation of defect in meter. 5. As rightly pointed out by counsel for the complainant as per Sec.45 1(a) of Kerala Water Supply & Sewage Act 1986 the connection ought to have been disconnected within a period of 30 days after service of a bill. Added to this counsel for complainant also shown us the Regulation of 14(c) of Kerala Water Supply Regulations. Regulation 14(c) provides that the Assistant Executive Engineer have the power to cut off water supply from any premises without notice if the charges are not paid within 30 days of the dates indicated in the bills or slab card and the opposite parties have no case that the complainant is paying the water charges. 6. In the instant case the opposite parties are claiming water charges for a long term without supplying water to the consumer. Ext.B1 nowhere shows the meter reading of the complainant’s water meter to prove consumption of water. The act of issuing bills for a long period without adhering to the Act and Regulation amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the opposite parties are liable under Consumer Protection Act. Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to cancel the demand for Rs.3089/- alleged to be due towards water charges and repay Rs.345/- collected from him along with a compensation of Rs.2000/- and a cost of Rs.2000/-. Opposite parties are further directed to restore water connection of the complainant K-1186/D. Time for compliance 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. letter sent by opposite party to complainant. A2. 23-11-04. letter sent by complainant to opposite party. A3. 7-12-04 letter sent by opposite party to complainant. A4. 4-2-06 Demand notice. A5. 18-02-06. B1. Page No.278 copy of Consumer Personal Ledger. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT