Asst. Executive E ngineer,KWA , P.H.Division, Kannur 12.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. GOPALAN.K 2. JESSY.M.D 3. PREETHAKUMARI.K.P
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
4.8.08 Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This complaint is filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.11, 500/- as compensation with cost. The complainants averment in brief are as follows: The complainant was in possession of the building bearing No.ELP.X.384 of Elayavoor Panchayath as per a cooli chit dt.1.2.04 executed between the complainant and by one P.K.Premaja, the landlord. The landlord wanted them to vacate and surrender vacant possession of the building to her as per a lawyer notice dt.10.8.05. Later the complainant approached the civil court and obtained a temporary order for prohibitory injunction directing the landlord not to vacate him by force. During this period while the injunction order is in force, the opposite party had disconnected the water connection as per the influence of the landlord on 3.3.06 without giving any notice. The consumer number is ELV/D/799 and the complainant had paid the bill up to 2006 June to the opposite party. The complainant had issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party for reconnection of water supply. But instead of reconnection he had issued a reply stating false allegation. Hence this complaint. On receiving the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and they appeared through Adv.C.Krishnan and filed version. Opposite party contended in his version that the consumer No.ELV.799 D was not in the name of the complainant and hence he is not a consumer of the opposite party and hence complaint is not maintainable. More over the opposite party had disconnected the water connection as per the application of Panneri Kaiprath Premaja Sreedharan who is the owner of the building., on 27.2.06 and the opposite party is not aware, whether the complainant was occupying the premises as tenant or not. If the complainant is a tenant and if he was deprived ofhis connection for water supply by the landlord the remedy is to approach the Accommodation Controller under section13 of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent control) Act. The complainant has already vacated the house involved in the case on 7.4.08.The complainant has not suffered any loss or damages ,mentioned in the compliant by any act or omission on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed. On the above pleadings the following issues are framed for consideration:- 1.Whether the complainant is consumer? 2.Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? 3.Relief and cost. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1,A2 and B1. Issue Nos.1 to 3 The complainant has contended that he was in possession of the building No.ELP.X.348 of Elayavoor Panchyath. But he has not produced any document to show this. Moreover the PW1 deposed that there was no kacheat executed in favour of the complainant and it was an oral one. Perusal of Ext.A2 along with the notice issued by the complainant through his counsel to the opposite party it is very clearly stated that water connection having consumer number as ELV/D/799 was in the name of one O.Venuraj the former tenant. It is very clear from this that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. And there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party . Hence we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. These issues are answered accordingly. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits forthecomplainant A1,Bill issued from Janasevana Kendram for remitting the water charge A2.Reply notice dt.20.3.06 issued by OP Exhibits for the opposite parties B1. Application for disconnection of water supply to consumer No.ELV799D submitted by P K Premaja Sreedharan dt,2,3,06 Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Kanakarani Witness examined for the opposite party Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
