IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 24th day of February 2010 CC.290/2006 M.K.Muhammed, Coolie, Raihanath Manzil, M.K.Ward, Kannur City. Complainant (Rep. by Adv.E.P.Hamza kutty) 1. Asst. Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Public Health Sub Division, Kannur. 2. Executive Engineer, Kerala water Authority Opposite parties Kannur. (Re. by Adv.S.J.Abraham) O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.10,029/- which the complainant forced to pay excess or to adjust the same in future bills. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Complainant is a consumer under opposite parties with a consumer No.KNR.1316/D. this connection was originally in the name of K.Sainaba. Later the property including the water connection purchased by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant has been paying the monthly charge of the water connection. On 13.12.06 1st opposite party send a consumer bill of Rs.10029/- towards the water consumption as additional bill. The complainant regularly paid the monthly payment without any default till this date. As a consumer complainant’s water consumption is minimum level and he has not received such a huge amount for his usage before. Actually the complainant did not consume such large quantity of water for which the opposite party issued the bill. Complainant is not in a position to pay such a huge amount to the opposite parties. After filing the complaint opposite party forcefully disconnected the water connection of complainant on 12.2.2007. Complainant was compelled to pay Rs.10, 029/-. Hence this complaint to refund or adjust the same in future bills. Pursuant to the notice opposite parties ente4red appearance and filed version in the form of statement. The case of the opposite parties in brief is as follow: the alleged water connection was sanctioned in the name of K.Sainaba, M.K.Ward, Kottartathil House, Kannur 3 and not in the name of complainant. She had taken the water connection on 30.12.1975. So the complainant is a third party. The alleged water bill as served to the consumer in the month of December 2006 for Rs.10, 026/-. The amount being paid by the consumer at the rate of Rs.44+2(PIC) is only provisional and it can see from the consumer card issued to the consumer. The actual consumption can only be ascertained on the basis of meter reading. The bill issued to the consumer as per meter reading taken for period from 30.11.03 to 12.10.06 which contains 11 readings. Complainant has not taken any steps to transfer the ownership though he has been using the water connection for the last 21 years. Complainant has no complaint with respect to water meter or meter reading. Complainant is liable to pay the bill amount. Complaint is filed only on the experimental basis. Hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consist of the proof affidavit filed by both parties and exts.A1 series 12 in number marked on the side of complainant and Exts.B1 to B5marked on the side of opposite party. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 Admittedly the bill in dispute for Rs.10029/-sent in the name of the original owner. It has been revealed from the facts of the case that the real consumer is the complainant. Complainant consumer purchased the property from the owner K.Sainaba long back and thereafter complainant is paying the monthly charges of the water connection. There is no need to labour deep on this point since it makes no difference when facts available leads to assume that the complainant is the real consumer taking into account the applicability of section 2(1) (d) by which consumer includes any user of such goods other than the person who buy such goods for consideration. The case of the complainant is that water authority appropriated Rs.10, 029/- excess than that of actual consumption where as opposite party contended that the bill was issued only on the basis of consumption of water. Opposite party further contended that the bill issued to the consumer is as per the meter reading for the period from 30.11.03 to 12.10.06. Neither the evidences through proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination nor the documents produced by the complainant are not sufficient enough to prove that the bill issued by the water authority for Rs.10, 029/- is illegal. It is a fact that the only way to ascertain the consumption of water is meter reading. Complainant has no case that the meter is not defective nor the reading is wrong. Ext.B2 shows the details of arrears from 4.9.04 to November 2006. Complainant has not challenged this reading. On going through the available evidence on record it is not possible to come in to conclusion that there is deficiency on the side of the opposite parties. Hence we hold that complainant is not entitled to get any relief since he failed to establish deficiency in service on the side of opposite parties. The issues 1 to 3 are found against the complainant. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Receipts issued by OP Exhibits for the opposite parties B1 & B2.Consumer Bill and details of arrears of bills dt.13.12.06 issued by OP B3.copy of the notice issued to complainant B4.Copy of the token issued to complainant B5.Copy of the decision of the Adalath Witness examined for either side: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P, Member | HONORABLE GOPALAN.K, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE JESSY.M.D, Member | | 
