IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Saturday the 30^th day of April, 2011

Filed on 22.10.10

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)             

                                                   in

C.C.No.274/10

between

Complainant:-                                                             Opposite Party:-

Sri.B.Chandrasekharan,                                                      The Asst.Executive Engineer,

      Ushas, Kanjippadam.P.O.,                                                 P.H.Sub Division,

      Alappuzha-688 005.                                                           Kerala Water Authority, Alappuzha.                                                

                                                                                                (By Adv.S.Naushad)                                                   

O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

The complainant case is as follows: - The complainant has been the consumer of the opposite party since long back. The complainant has been unfailingly paying off the water charges. In the meantime the water charge was hiked to Rs.42/-(Rupees forty two only) from the earlier perfunctory amount. On 4^th October 2010, the complainant was constrained to remit Rs.808/- (Rupees eight hundred eight only) as required by the opposite party. When made queries as to the said amount so remitted, the opposite party impressed upon the complainant that the actual water charge was Rs.82/-(Rupees eighty two only), and the amount levied was the surcharge for the replacement of the damaged meter. The opposite party never issued notice to the complainant asking him to replace the damaged meter. Nobody on behalf of opposite party visited the complainant premise in order to take reading of the water the complainant consumed. The complainant enquired the water authority with regard to the taking of meter reading. The complainant was informed that the meter reading is to be examined in every six months. The complainant sustained untold mental agony when he was compelled to incur Rs.450/-(Rupees four fifty only) to affix a new meter. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.

1. On notice being sent, the opposite party turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the opposite party issued notice to the complainant demanding the replacement of water meter on 12^th November 2011. The complaint filed by the complainant is unsustainable. According to the opposite party the contention of the complainant otherwise is contrary to truth. The complaint is without any bonafides, and the same is only to be dismissed.

2. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1 and the documents Exbts. Al to A4 were marked. On the side of the opposite party, no additional evidence let in other than the version filed already.

3. Taking into account the contentions of the party, the issues that crop up before us for consideration are:-

(a) Whether the complainant sustained any injury at the hands of the opposite party?

(b) If so, the compensation and cost?

4. Admittedly, the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party. The complainant approached this Forum, with the contention that the opposite party availed excess amount as water charge. The complainant submits that the opposite party never issued any notice requiring replacement of water meter. We went through the materials put on record by the parties. It appears that, the opposite party forcefully contends that the opposite party on 12^th November 2003 issued a notice bearing No.7017 calling upon the complainant to take effective steps to replace the defective meter. It is pertinent to notice that the opposite party put forth the date and even the particular number of the notice which is claimed to have been duly kept in the office records. Surprisingly enough, no any serious effort is seen to have taken by the complainant to deny or dispute the said contention of the opposite party. In this circumstance, we have no course open but to accept the contention of the opposite party.

In the light of what have been discussed herein above, we are of the considered view that the complainant’s case does not merit acceptance and the same is liable to be dismissed, and is dismissed.

In the result, complaint stands disposed accordingly. The parties are left to bear with their own cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of April, 2011.

                                                                                                Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi 

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                -     B.Chandrasekharan (Witness)

Ext. A1            -     The copy of the Provisional Invoice Card

Ext. A2            -     The copy of the Retail Invoice dated, 13.10.2010

Ext. A3            -     The copy of the Water Meter Test Certificate dated, 13.10.2010

Ext. A4            -     The copy of the Receipt dated, 04.10.2010

 Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil

// True Copy //

                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/-      

Compared by:-