Kerala

Palakkad

CC/137/2016

Ponnambalam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Executive Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

K.Balachandran

06 Sep 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Near District Panchayath Office, Palakkad - 678 001, Kerala
 
Complaint Case No. CC/137/2016
 
1. Ponnambalam
S/o.Subramanian Moothan, 12/151, Sulthanpet, Coimbatore Road, Palakkad
Palakkad
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Assistant Executive Engineer
P.H.Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority, Palakkad
Palakkad
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. Shiny.P.R. PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Suma.K.P MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. V.P.Anantha Narayanan MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 06 Sep 2016
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 6th  day of September 2016 

Present  : Smt.Shiny.P.R,  President

             :  Smt.Suma.K.P, Member

             : Sri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member  

            CC/137/2016

 

Ponnambalam,                                                                          :           Complainant   

S/o.Subramanya Moothan,

12/151,Coimbatore Road,

Sulthanpet, Palakkad

(By Adv.K.Balachandran)

  Vs

                                   

Assistant Executive Engineer,

P.H.Sub Division,

Kerala Water Authority,

Palakkad                                                                                  :             Opposite party 

                                                                  O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R, President

 Heard on admission. Complaint is filed for an order directing opposite party not to realize any amount under demand notice dated 5-8-2016.  On perusal of documents produced by the complainant, it is found that the complainant had availed a non domestic water connection from the opposite party and for that, the rent was fixed as Rs.102/- per month. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that complainant availed water connection for commercial purpose. Hence the complaint will not come under the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Since the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Act, this Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed without going into the merits of the case. Complainant has liberty to approach Civil Court for the redressal of  his grievances.

 

            Pronounced in the open court on this the  6th  day of  September 2016.

                                                                                                        S

                                        Sd/-

                                   Shiny.P.R                                                                                

                                    President

                               S

                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                    Suma.K.P

                                    Member

 

                                                                                                                            Sd/-                         

                       V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                                    Member

                             

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Shiny.P.R.]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Suma.K.P]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. V.P.Anantha Narayanan]
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.