CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC No. 160/2009 Wednesday the 10th day , of November , 2010 Petitioner : Suresh Kumar S. Police Quarters No. G 44/2 Collectorate P.O Kottayam. Opposite parties : 1) The Asst. Exe. Engineer, PWD Building Section Near KSRTC, Kottayam 2) The Asst. Exe. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Kottayam. O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Case of the petitioner filed on 7..6..2009 is as follows: Petitioner is residing in the Government quarters for the last 18 years. According to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 390/- is deducted from his salary as house rent allowance. First opposite party is conducting repair works of the building. Water connection to the petitioner’s quarters is given by second opposite party, with vide consumer No. 231. According to the petitioner he is regularly paying water charges. On 13..5..2008 petitioner was served with a notice from the second opposite party demanding the petitioner to replace the faulty water meter. On 15..5..2008 petitioner submitted an application to the first opposite party for replacing the faulty water meter. First opposite party has not replaced the faulty meter. Due to the act of deficiency in service committed by the -2- first opposite party petitioner is forced to remit surcharge to the second opposite party. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. So, he prays for refund of the surcharge of Rs. 120/- along with compensation of Rs. 2500/-. All the opposite parties entered appearance. First opposite party filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the first opposite party police quarters is under the administrative control of Supdt. of police, Kottayam. Rent for the occupants of the quarters is recovered by the Supdt. of police from the salary of occupants.. Since the first opposite party is not the owner of the police quarters there is no contractual relationship between first opposite party and the occupants. So, the petitioner is not a consumer. First opposite party only carries out maintenance and repairs of the building, when requested by the competent authority. Repair works are carried out after following rules and procedures prescribed. Periodical maintenance, replacement, repairing are carried out by the PWD as per requisition made by the police department. In this case replacement of water meter was initiated by inviting tender on 19..5..2009. Tender was received from the contractor on 16..6..2009. Agreement was executed on 23..7..2009 and work was executed on 29..7..2009. So, according to the first opposite party after completing the procedures prescribed repairing works were done and there is no deficiency in service on their part. -3- Second opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the second opposite party, as per the prevailing rules in Kerala Water Authority, consumer shall repair or replace defective water meter within 30 days. In case of default surcharge is levied. In this case notice was issued to the complainant on 13..5..2008. Meter was replaced on 6..8..2009. From 18/08 to 7/09 Rs. 290/- was levied as surcharge. So, according to the second opposite party no reliefs can be allowed against second opposite party. They pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether the petition is maintainable or not? ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? iii) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists of deposition of PW1. Ext. A1 to A 4 documents on the side of the petitioner and affidavit of apposite party Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1 According to the first opposite party they are not owner of the police quarters. So, there is no contractual relationship between PWD and occupants . Since the first opposite party is not realizing any amount from the occupants of the quarters. Occupants are not at all a consumer of PWD. So, the petition is to be dismissed. Section 2 (d) ii of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 defines a -4- consumer as (i) the person who buys any goods or hires any service for consideration and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of service. Admittedly PWD is the department who are concerned with maintenance and repairs of building. In our view petitioner, as a beneficiary is a consumer of the first opposite party so, we find that the petition is maintainable. Point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 Admittedly the second opposite party levied surcharge on the petitioner/consumer for not replacing the faulty water meter. According to the petitioner he submitted an application to the opposite party for replacing the faulty water meter and the 1st opposite party accepted the same. The copy of the petition given to the Executive Engineer of the first opposite party is produced and the same is marked as Ext. A2. According to the first opposite party periodical maintenance and repairs are carried out by the PWD as per requisition made by the police department. The counsel for the first opposite party vehumently argued that as per paragraph 82 of the KPWD code a requisition will be made by the Civil officer concerned to the public works department and then on receiving the requisition Exe. Engineer will firstly satisfied himself as to propriety of the works and that there is sufficient provision with the budget grant under proper subhead of repairs. Further more when it is decided to arrange a work through contract agency, the award of contract should be through tenders. Before tenders are invited for work there should be (a) administrative sanction (b) -5- technical sanction (c) ample provision of funds for the work in budget . So, from getting a complaint from every individual occupants first opposite party cannot proceed on the same. In the Ext. A1 complaint given by the petitioner to the first opposite party he stated that in earlier occasion on 13..10..1993 when there was excess water charges the petitioner given an application to the first opposite party then the first opposite party on 19..10..1993 replaced the faulty meter by a fault free meter through one Sasi a staff of the first opposite party. So the petitioner requested the opposite party to replace the faulty meter as replaced earlier. From Ext. A2 it can be seen that the opposite party received Ext. A1 on 15..5..2008. It may be true that as per the norms the repair can be done after getting a requisition from the Civil Officer. But the opposite party had at least a duty to give a reply to the petitioner stating the legal formalities for doing the repair. Here being a public officer the opposite party is negligent in not giving a reply to the petitioner. Due to the act of deficiency committed by the first opposite party the poor occupant of the police quarter is liable to remit the surcharge. The concept of public authority and power exercised by public functionaries has many dimensions. It has not gone change with passage of time and change in out look. The authorities empowered to function under a statute while exercising power, discharges the duty, It has to act to sub serve general welfare and common good in discharging the duty honestly and bonafied. In a modern society no authority can arrogate itself the power to agree in a manner which is arbitrary. It is unfortune in a matter which require immediate attention linger on legal -6- formalities and a poor police man is made to run from one end to other giving complaints with no result. So in our view act of the opposite party in not replying to Ext. A1 letter is a clear deficiency in service. In our view when the Fora directs payments of damages and compensation against the states the ultimate sufferer is the common man. Which the tax payers money, which is paid for the in action of those who are entrusted under the act to discharge duties. Which is therefore necessary that while awarding compensation for harassment or oppression it should be firstly paid from the department concerned and immediately to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such un pardonable behavior . So, point No. 2 is found accordingly. Point No. 3 In view of finding in point No. 1 and 2. Petition is allowed. In the result 1st opposite party is ordered to refund an amount of Rs. 120/- to the petitioner which is remitted by the petitioner as surcharge to the second opposite party. Petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for the loss and sufferings along with Rs. 500/- as litigation cost First opposite party shall pay the cost and compensation amount to the petitioner. First opposite party has the liberty to recover the same, if they desires so, from the concerned official who committed act of deficiency. Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of this order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and -7- pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 10th day of November, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Document for the petitioner Ext. A1: Copy of notice Dtd: 13..5..2008 Ext. A2: Copy of the complaint given by the petitioner to the Exe. Engineer of first opposite party. Ext. A3: Copy of the provisional invoice of the card Ext. A4: Copy of receipt Dtd: 7..4..2009 Ext. A4(a) Copy of receipt Dtd: 8..5..2009 Ext. A4(b) Copy of receipt Dtd: 6..6..2009 Ext. A4(c) Copy of receipt Dtd: 6..7..2009 Ext. A4(d) Copy of receipt Dtd: 24..8..2009 Documents for the opposite party Ext. B1: Copy of list of water meter damaged in the police quarters. By Order, Senior Superintendent Despatched on / Received on amp/5cs | 
