Kerala

Kollam

CC/195/2019

Hari.P.V, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Executive Engineer, - Opp.Party(s)

27 Dec 2021

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Civil Station , Kollam-691013.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/195/2019
( Date of Filing : 19 Aug 2019 )
 
1. Hari.P.V,
Padma Bhavan, Kottamukku,Kollam.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Assistant Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,Water Supply Sub Division,Kollam.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. SANDHYA RANI.S MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. STANLY HAROLD MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 27 Dec 2021
Final Order / Judgement

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE   27th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

Present: -    Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

    CC.No.195/2019

 

Hari P.V.,

Padma Bhavan,

Kottamukku, Kollam:         Complainant

V/s

Assistant Executive Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

Water Supply Sub Division,

Kollam.

 

ORDER

 

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

          This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

          The complainant filed a petition against the opposite party Kerala Water Authority alleging that they had served a notice for Revenue Recovery Proceedings of Rs.1,54,562/- for realizing arrears of water charges in respect of  water connection bearing No.K26/202669/N in the name of his late mother in Bhargavi Amma who had expired three years ago.  It is alleged that there is no such water connection and that his mother has not obtained any water connection.  The Assistant Engineer deputed by the Kerala Water Authority was unable to locate the alleged water connection and filed a report to that effect. The complainant would further allege that he is solely depending upon the water from the well.   The complainant filed the present complaint seeking to avoid Revenue Recovery Proceedings since it is illegal. 

          In the response to the notice issued the opposite party has neither appeared before the commission nor filed version.  Hence the opposite party set exparte.

          When the case was posted for recording evidence the complainant has not turned up nor adduced any oral or documentary evidence.  But the complainant has filed Japtha No.1 the Revenue Recovery Proceedings notice dated 07.06.2019 along with his complaint.  Subsequently the complainant also has produced Japtha No.2 copy of communication filed before the Human Rights Commission dated 23.09.2019.  Thereafter the Human Rights Commission had regularized and reduced the amount to Rs.3,906/-.  On perusal of the complaint and documents produced as Japtha 1 and 2 it is seen that there is no consumer service provider relationship between the complainant and Kerala Water Authority.  It is to be pointed out that as per the averments in the complaint no water connection was taken in the name of late mother Smt.Bhargavi Amma also.  In the circumstances even if the complainant is the legal heir of the deceased Bhargavi Amma, he cannot be considered as a beneficiary of the non-existing water connection.  In the circumstances the complainant is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the consumer forum/commission.   The complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as he has no nexus with the opposite party Kerala Water Authority.  The only remedy available to the complainant is to approach the civil court and seek relief.  It is true that the complainant is based upon a notice issued in the name of the complainant’s mother late Bhargavi Amma and it is evident from Japtha 2 that the grievance of the complainant had almost settled and the relief sought by the complainant has also been obtained from the Human Rights Commission.  As the complainant is neither a consumer nor a beneficiary of the original consumer, the consumer forum/commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and the complaint is only to be dismissed being not maintainable.

 

          In the result complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 27th  day of  December 2021.

STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-

                                       Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                       Senior superintendent

 

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1             : Revenue Recovery Proceedings notice dated 07.06.2019

Ext.P2             : copy of communication filed before the Human Rights Commission

                        dated 23.09.2019

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. SANDHYA RANI.S]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. STANLY HAROLD]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.