KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 154/2019
JUDGMENT DATED: 18.12.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 58/2018 of DCDRC, Palakkad)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- T.D. Mary, W/o E.A. Joy, Eluvathingal House, Kozhinjiramkad, Pallatheri P.O., Palakkad-678 007.
- E.A. Joy, Eluvathingal House, Kozhinjiramkad, Pallatheri P.O., Palakkad-678 007.
(Party in person)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- The Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Kalmandapam, P.H. Sub Division, Palakkad-678 001.
- The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Kalmandapam, P.H. Sub Division, Palakkad-678 001.
(By Adv. Issac Samuel)
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The appellants are the complainants in C.C. No. 58/2018 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (for short “the District Commission”).
2. The complainants were given water connection on 29.05.2007 by the opposite parties as a non-domestic connection as the complainants were, during the said period, doing the business of poultry farm. However, since there was default in the payment of the bill amount, the opposite parties disconnected the water supply on 22.04.2014. A bill for Rs. 10,801/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Eight Hundred and One only) was also issued in 2015 by the opposite parties to the complainants. The complainants thereafter sold the property to a third party in 2017. Since the complainants did not pay the amount of arrears due to the opposite parties, the opposite parties initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the complainants for an amount of 11,765/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Five only), which is the amount remaining inclusive of interest, after making payment of an amount of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only). Since the information regarding the revenue recovery proceedings was given to the complainants through online, the District Commission found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. However, the opposite parties have not challenged the said finding of the District Commission. The contention of the opposite parties is that since there were arrears in payment of bills, the opposite parties initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the complainants in accordance with law. However, since the order impugned is not appealed by the opposite parties, the order impugned has become final and conclusive so far as the opposite parties are concerned. Therefore, the said aspect cannot be considered in this appeal, filed by the complainant seeking for enhancement of compensation. The District Commission had ordered a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) and costs of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the complainants. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the complainants are not entitled to get more compensation. The complainants have not also stated any reason entitling them to get more compensation particularly when they were defaulters. In the said circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order impugned.
In the result, this appeal stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this judgment.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
jb AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
