Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/763

rakhi zacharia - Complainant(s)

Versus

asst executive engineer kerala water authority - Opp.Party(s)

25 Sep 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 763/15

JUDGMENT DATED:25.09.2019

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.91/14

on the file of CDRF, Kottayam)

PRESENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                          : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA KUMARI.A           : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

        RakhiZacharia, W/o.Zacharia Jacob, Ayiramthycakal House,

        Old Bazar, Kottayam

 

                                (By Adv.Sri.S.Reghukumar)

 

                                VS

RESPONDENT

        Kerala Water Authority, Kottayam,

        Rep.by Assistant Executive Engineer,

        PH Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority,

        Kottayam – 686 002

 

                        (By Adv.Sri.Issac Samuel)

 

                                        JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 Complainant in CC.No.91/14 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam, in short, the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the district forum by which the complaint filed by her was dismissed.

       

        2.     The averments contained in the complaint are in brief as follows. The complainant has only a domestic water connection having No.K66/446/D. The complainant has been remitting water charges regularly without any default. While so a demand notice dated 27.12.2013 for Rs 1,84,331/- was issued to the complainant by the opposite parties allegedly to be to dues in respect of consumer no.KTS/201/5. There is only one water meter in existence in the premises.On enquiry by the complainant there was no clarification regarding the demand notice. The complainant had taken a special connection for the construction purpose, at the time of constructing the building which was converted into domestic connection when the house construction was completed. The demand notice for Rs 1,84,331/- was issued with respect of a non existing connection. The act of the opposite parties in issuing the demand notice to the complainant in respect of a non existing connection constitute deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence the complainant sought for setting aside the impugned demand notice.

 

               3.        The opposite party filed version contending that the complainant has a water connection as consumer no.KTS/201/S, as a special connection for construction purpose. There was also a domestic connection No.MO6/446/D. The said connection was installed from 17.02.2001. There is regularconsumption of water from that connection and the bills amounts are remitted. The complainant has libertyto disconnect her water connection by remitting the statutory disconnection charges. If the building and connection are not existing the complainant can approach the opposite party and file petition for effecting disconnection and closing the file. After verification and the concurrence from the higher authorities, the opposite partyis willing the eliminate the disputed connection from the computer ledger. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief against them. So the complaint is to be dismissed.

 

                  4.   Complainant filed affidavit and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked on his side. The opposite party also filed affidavit. No document was produced by them. Considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the district forum has passed the impugned order.  Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the complainant has preferred the present appeal.

 

              5.       Heard both sides. Perused the records.

 

              6.       The opposite party had issued Ext.A1 demand notice to the complainant to remit Rs 1,84,331/- towards the dues under the water connection No.KTS/201/5. According to the complainant there is only one water connection provided to the premises and having No.K66/446/D. So she is not bound to pay the amount demanded by the opposite party as per Ext.A1 demand notice. The opposite party contended that the complainant was provided with water connection as Consumer No.KTS/201/5 as a special connection for construction purpose on 28.12.1999. There is another water connection provided to the complainant having No.KTS/446/A which was installed from 17.02.2001. The bill was issued generated from the computer system. According to the opposite party if the building and the connection are non-existence the complainant can approach them and file petition for disconnection and closing the file. The district forum dismissed the complaint finding that the complainant is not a consumer as per section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, since in the complaint the complainant has alleged that demand notice issued to her was with regard to the water consumed by somebody else. On a perusal of the averments in the complaint it can be seen that the case of the complainant is that the demand notice issued by the opposite party to her is with respect to a non existing water connection. The contention of the opposite party is that a water connection was provided to the complainant on 28.12.1999 for construction of the building. Admittedly the complainant was provided with a domestic water connection having consumer no.M/06/446/D (earlier No.K/06/446 D).

 

              7.       The finding of the district forum that the complainant has no case that she availed or hired any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised is not correct. The finding of the District forum that considering the averments contained in the compliant and the contention of the opposite party the complainant cannot be termed as defined under section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act and as such the complaint is not maintainable is not correct. The complaint is maintainable.

 

                 8.    In Ext.A1 demand notice, the number of water connection is stated KTS/201/5. In Ext.A5 it is stated by the opposite party that the water connection provided to the complainant is having No.M06/446D. In the version filed by the opposite party it is stated by them that there is domestic water connection having No.M06/446/D is provided to the complainant. In Ext.A4 it is admitted by the opposite party that there is only one water providedtothe complainant. In the version it is stated by the opposite parties that the complainant was provided with a water connection having Consumer No.KTS/201/5 as a special connection for construction purpose on 28.12.1999 and the water connection having Consumer No.K 06 446 D in the name of the complainant was installed from 17.02.2011 and there is regularly consumption of water from that connection and the amounts as per the bills issued were remitted regularly. The opposite party has no case that the complainant has been consuming water from the water connection having No.KTS 201/5. In Para 5 of the version it is stated by the opposite party that if the building and connections are non existing, the complainant can approach themand file petition for effecting disconnection and closing the file and after verification and the concurrence of the Higher authorities they are willing to eliminate the disputed connection from the computer ledger. Further, in the affidavit filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Water (PH), Sub Division, Kottayam it is stated that after the filing of the complaint they had conductedan enquiry and the Meter Inspector reported that at that time there was no water connection having Consumer No.KTS 201/5 in the premises of the complainant. On the basis of the report, a report has been sent to the Executive Engineer, Kottayam for elimination of the disputed water connection, dated 29.10.2014. So it is come out in evidence that Ext.A1 demand notice is with respect to a water connection which is existing only in the records / computer of the opposite party. Considering all these facts it can be seen that there is some basis in the submission of the appellant that she had taken a special water connection for construction purpose which was converted to domestic purpose, but corresponding entries were not effected in the records or the computer of the opposite party. Anywhere, it is admitted by the opposite party that Ext.A1 demand notice is issued to the complainant with respect to a non existing water connection. Further, on a perusal of Ext.A1 it can be seen that no details are stated regarding the claim of the amount of Rs 1,84,331/-. Ext.A1 is dated 27.12.2013,in which it is only stated that the amounts due towards the consumption of water till that date, but it is not stated from which date or year. The issuance of the Ext.A1 demand notice to the complainant for Rs 1,84,331/-by the opposite party in respect of a non existing water connection constitute deficiency in service and Ext.A1 is liable to be set aside. We do so.  So the appeal is to be allowed.

 

                      In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the district forum is set aside. Ext.A1 demand notice dated 27.12.2013 issued by the opposite party to the complainant is set aside.

 

                   Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

 

 

T.S.P. MOOSATH             : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

RANJIT. R                                : MEMBER

 

 

BEENA KUMARI.A           : MEMBER

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 763/15

JUDGMENT DATED:25.09.2019