CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No 60/12
Wednesday the 11th day of April, 2012
Petitioner : K.L. Thomas,
Kannammakil,
Neendoor PO,
Kottayam.
Vs.
Opposite party : Triveni Swajal Dhara Drinking Water
Consumers Society,(Reg.No.K142/2003)
Neendoor PO, Kottayam, 686 601.
ORDER
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member
The complainant’s case is as follows.
The complainant is a retired central government Dy.S.P. He is a member of the opposite party, drinking water consumers society. The said society is run with the assistance of central government fund and the fund is collected from the members of the society. The society has given water connection and has installed water meter to the members of the society. The opposite party issued a notice dtd 15/10/11 to the complainant stating that his meter is faulty and install a new meter within 10 days of receipt of the said notice. Within 5 days of receipt of the said notice the complainant issued a reply to the opposite party asking for some clarifications regarding the notice dtd 15/10/11. The complainant‘s doubts were not cleared and his reply was not considered. Without any further information the complainant’s water connection was disconnected. The complainant alleged that due to the said disconnection he and his wife suffered scarcity of water. Hence he filed this complaint claiming restoration of water connection and litigation cost.
Notice was sent to the opposite party and it returned with endorsement ‘unclaimed’ hence set expartee.
Points for consideration are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of deposition of the complainant and Ext A1 document.
Point No.1
Heard the petitioner. The petitioner desposed that the opposite party issued a notice dtd 15/10/11 having no consumer number and name to the petitioner showing that the meter was not working. The copy of the said notice is marked as Ext.A1. The complainant further deposed that he sent a reply notice asking some clarifications about the notice. The petitioner further deposed that without giving any explanation to his reply, the water connection was disconnected. The complainant alleged that the aforementioned acts of the opposite parties show that they are deficient in their service. As the opposite parties chose not to contest the allegations of the complainant against the opposite party remain unchallenged. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is allowed.
In the result, the complaint is ordered as follows.
The opposite parties will restore the water connection to the complainant’s premises. The opposite parties will also pay a compensation of Rs.1500/- and litigation cost of Rs.1000/-. The complainant is directed to remove the faulty meter and fit a new meter and inform ‘the change of meter’ to the opposite parties so that the opposite parties can restore the water connection at the earliest.
This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation.
Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1-copy of the notice dtd 15-10-11
Documents of opposite party
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
