IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMOSSION, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 21st day of December, 2021
Filed on 01.10.2020
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar.BSc. LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma. BA,LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.241/2020
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.S.Kumara Velu 1. The Chief Engineer
Subramania Gardens Kerala Water Authority
Near Income Tax Quarters Thiruvananthapuram
South Vellakinar
Alappuzha-688001 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer
(Adv. C. Parameswaran) Kerala Water Authority,
Vazhichery, Alappuzha,
(Adv. Joseph Mathew for Ops)
O R D E R
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
1. The complainant’s case briefly stated is as follows:-
The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party. The water connection was given to the complainant on 16/3/2004 in his residential building by the opposite party.
At the request of the complainant the same was disconnected by the opposite parties in the year 2004 itself. The complainant states that he had received any bill thereafter till 2016. The complainant states that the opposite party without perusing the records maintained by them manually and erroneously entered the consumer number of the complainant in the system. Based on the erroneous entry in the computer system the opposite parties are issuing bills pertaining the consumer number allotted to the complainant.
The complainant has taken up the matter with the opposite parties, the opposite parties assured that they will rectify the mistake within two weeks and generating bills would be closed in full. Based on the representation so given by the opposite parties, the complainant was under the bonafide belief that the opposite parties will rectify their mistake. The complainant submits that the callous and irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties in generating bill for the water not consumed by the complainant is illegal and baseless. The said acts of the opposite parties are arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted. The opposite parties have illegally and without any basis issued the bills to harass the complainant. The complainant states that he had paid the bill for the water consumed by him till 6/12/2004 the date of disconnection of water supply. The complainant has not misused, dishonestly abstracted, consumed or used water in any manner prejudicial to the opposite parties. The impugned bill issued by the opposite parties to the complainant is prima facie illegal. The opposite parties are not entitled to recover the bill amount from the complainant. No amount is due from the complainant to the opposite parties.
The actions of the opposite parties amount to gross deficiency of service and the complainant has no other effective remedy but to approach this Commission for redressing his grievances. Therefore the complainant is seeking the following relief:
1.To declare that the impugned bill raised by the opposite parties is null and void and that the complainant is not liable to pay any amount covered under the impugned bill.
2. To direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for the mental agony and suffering under gone in the matter and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
It is admitted that the complainant had taken water connection on 16/3/2004. The opposite parties have not known that the complainant had disconnected his water connection on 6/12/2004 since there is no such evidence seen in their official files. Nothing is seen from the opposite parties records that the complainant has paid any amount towards water charge and disconnection fee till day. The e-abacus arrangement started in the year of 2016. The bills issued after the year 2016, the complainant is not ready to pay the arrear of water charges. As per the records the water connection still existing hence direct the complainant to remit the water charges arrears in accordance of the minimum rate and also direct to remit the disconnection fees.
The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 series were marked. Opposite parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. RW1 was examined and Ext.B1 was marked. Thereafter we have heard both sides.
3. Points that arose for determination are as follows:-
1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?
4. Relief and cost ?
4. Points 1 to 3:-
The complainant alleged that at the request of him the water connection in his premises was disconnected by the opposite parties in the year 2004. In the year of 2016, after a long delay he had received water bills. The complainant produced Ext.A1 series bill to prove his contention. The opposite parties contented that the complainant did not file any application for disconnection before them in the year 2004. Ext.B1 dtd. 25/11/2021 was produced by the opposite parties.
The learned counsel for opposite parties argued that the complaint is barred by limitation. They have taken the same contention in their proof affidavit also. On perusal of evidence on records it appears that one of the bill in Ext.A1 issued by the opposite party on 21st December 2020 ie, just after filed this complaint also. Moreover along with the complaint produced the bill dtd. 21/10/2019 issued by the opposite party. Hence there is no question of limitation for filing this complaint. It is clear from Ext.A1 bills that opposite party is claiming the earlier arrear ie, beyond the 3 years. So which is evidently hit by limitation.
Further, in the light Ext.B1 opposite parties meter inspector visited the complainant’s premises and prepared a report on 28/3/2021. As per the said report the entire arrears of Rs.16,453/- has been waived and disconnected the connection by the opposite parties. Eventhough opposite parties themselves convinced that there is no water connection at the premises of the complainant and he is not consuming water in that connection yet they have issued bill without the support of meter reading. The said acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore the opposite parties have to compensate the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to get litigation cost from the opposite parties since they have pushed the complainant in to an unnecessary litigation.
5. Point No.4:-
In the result, we allowed the complaint in part and direct as follows:-
1) The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service to the complainant. Failing which said amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.
2) The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
The above said order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 21st day of December, 2021.
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - S.Kumara Velu(Complainant)
Ext.A1series - Demand and Disconnection notices
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Podimon.K(Witness)
Ext.B1 - Document
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
