Asst.Exe.Engineer,KWA V/S TK Ismail - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Wayanad

30/2006

TK Ismail - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asst.Exe.Engineer,KWA - Opp.Party(s)

12 Feb 2008

ORDER

CDRF Wayanad
Civil Station,Kalpetta North
consumer case(CC) No. 30/2006

TK Ismail						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Asst.Exe.Engineer,KWA						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. SAJI MATHEW

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

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.

ORDER

ORDER By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint in brief is as follows. The Complainant is running a Bakery called Madhurya Bakery located at Meenangadi. The building owner of the said bakery is Mrs. Renuka Nethiar. In 1999 the Complainant got a water connection to the bakery. The consumer of the water supply provided with the Opposite Party is the building owner. The Complainant has been in use of water and paid the charges for the consumption of water. The monthly amount charted by the Opposite Party Rs.102/-. The Opposite Party did not supply the bills and meter reading was not taken in time. When ever the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party for verification of the meter and bills, the Opposite Party had not responded positively. The Complainant had been paying the bills Rs.3,000/- on 15.10.2001, Rs. 1,000/- on 04.08.2004, Rs.1,210/- on 18.10.2004 and Rs.2,300/- on 17.02.2005 in total Rs. 7,510/- has been paid. On 18.10.2004 when the Complainant paid Rs.1,210/- the (Contd.......... 2) - 2 - receipt issued to him showed that charges against the bill up to 2/2002. Up to 2/2002 the charge leviable upon the Complainant is Rs.2,754/- that is charge for 27 months and the amount comes only Rs.2,754/-. Whereas by the instruction of the Opposite Party the complainant had to remit Rs. 4,210/-. The excess amount of Rs.1,456/- is remitted by the Complainant. On 13.10.2004 t he Complainant went to the Opposite Party's Office for the remittance of the balance amount. The amount liable to be paid by the complainant towards arrear for 41 months from March 2002 to July 2005 will be Rs.1,882/-. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 to clear the debt. In another calculation from December 1999 to July 2005 for the period of 68 months the amount payable was Rs.6,936/-. But therein towards the installments, the Complainant remitted Rs.7,510/- in short Rs.574/- in excess was paid. There may be a direction not to terminate the water connection and to withdraw the notice demanding Rs.11,422/-. The Complainant is to be paid Rs.25,000/- by the Opposite Party for their deficiency in service. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. The complaint is not maintainable and more over the Opposite Party has no connection with the Complainant. The Complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Party. One Renuka Nethiar the building owner is the consumer of the water supply No.35 under the Meenangadi Project. In 13.01.1999 the connection of water supply was given to Mrs. Renuka Nethiar. The Consumer is entitled to remit the monthly charge of every months. Whereas in this particular case the consumer paid bill of Rs.3,000/- after laps of 33 months for the period in between 1/1999 and 9/2000. Up to the period of 3/99 commencing from 1/99 the monthly payment was to be Rs.571/- for every months and afterwards the amount charge monthly was Rs.102/- for the following periods. If the amount become due on non payment the interest levied is Rs.10/-. Whereas if the due amount is above Rs. 500/-, the consumer is liable to give interest at the rate of 2%. Up to 10/2001 the consumer has to pay Rs.4,715/- and Rs.3,000/- was only paid and from 10/2001 onwards the (Contd.......... 3) - 3 - consumer has not paid the charge. The meter became faulty and it was known on inspection. The notice No.296 was issued to the consumer to substitute the defective meter with a meter in working condition. If the meter becomes defective it is the responsibility of the consumer to replace it with correct one. The new meter was installed on 04.08.2004 after the installation of the new meter the charge was considerably less. Towards the due amount the Complainant filed an application to facilitate him the payment in installments. Even the due amount was allowed to be paid in installments the Consumer paid is Rs.1,000/- on 04.08.2004, Rs.1,210/- on 18.10.2004 and Rs.2,300/- on 17.02.2005. The Consumer was given a notice No.556 on 10.10.2005 showing that the connection will be dropped, if the due amount was not paid. Even of receiving the disconnection notice the consumer was not ready to clear the liability and the water connection was detached on 22.02.2006. The claim of the consumer that the due amount is readily paid is absolutely false. Up to March 2006 the consumer has to give the Opposite Party Rs.13,258/- as due amount. The water authority is a board acting under the and rules and regulations of the government. The points in considerations are: 1.Whether the Complainant is a consumer? 2.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?. 3.Relief and costs. Point No.1: The Complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.A1 is the consumer meter card issued to one Renuka Nethiar with consumer No.35. Ext.A2 is the provisional invoice card, the monthly amount to be remitted as per which is Rs.102/-. Ext.A3 series are the receipts 4 in numbers of the receipts given to Renuka Nethiar towards the amount received. It is admitted that the (Contd..........4) - 4 - Complainant has not produced any documents to show that he is the proprietor of the Madhuriya bakery and the room is under the occupancy under tenancy of the Complainant. There is no water connection in the name of the Complainant. The agreement for water connection was in between Renuka Nethiar and the Water Authority. The Assistant Engineer of the Water Authority is examined as OPW1. Ext. B1 is the application given by Renuka Nethiar for water supply. The Ownership Certificate of the building is Ext. B2. Ext. B6 is the agreement executed between the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Water Authority and Renuka Nethiar. It is not seen in none of the documents that the Complainant is a Consumer of the supply of water and no evidence is bring forth to show that the Complainant is the proprietor of the Madhuriya bakery. The point No.1 is found against the Complainant. Points No.2 and 3: The points No.2 and 3 do not require an elaborate consideration. Being the point No.1 is found against the Complainant. In the result, it is held that being the Complainant is neither a consumer nor beneficiary of the Consumer. The complaint is dismissed and no order upon costs. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 5th day of February 2008. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True Copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. (Contd.........5) - 5 - APPENDIX Witnesses for Complainant: PW1. Ismayil. Complainant. Witnesses for Opposite Party: OPW1. Thankaraj. Assistant Engineer, Water Authority. Exhibits for Complainant: A1. Consumer Meter Card A2. Provisional Invoice Card. A3 Series Receipt. (4 in numbers) A4. Bill. dt: 13.10.2005. Exhibits for Opposite Party: B1. Photo copy of Application. B2. Photo copy of Ownership Certificate. dt:05.05.1998 B3. Photo copy of Water/Sever Connection work Order dt: 26.11.1998. B4. Photo copy of Certificate. B5. Photo copy of Connection Order. dt:12.01.1999. B6. Photo copy of Agreement B7. Photo copy of Disconnection Advice. dt: 10.10.2005. B8 3 sheets. Statement. B9. Authorisation Letter. dt: 25.10.2007. PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

ORDER By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint in brief is as follows. The Complainant is running a Bakery called Madhurya Bakery located at Meenangadi. The building owner of the said bakery is Mrs. Renuka Nethiar. In 1999 the Complainant got a water connection to the bakery. The consumer of the water supply provided with the Opposite Party is the building owner. The Complainant has been in use of water and paid the charges for the consumption of water. The monthly amount charted by the Opposite Party Rs.102/-. The Opposite Party did not supply the bills and meter reading was not taken in time. When ever the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party for verification of the meter and bills, the Opposite Party had not responded positively. The Complainant had been paying the bills Rs.3,000/- on 15.10.2001, Rs. 1,000/- on 04.08.2004, Rs.1,210/- on 18.10.2004 and Rs.2,300/- on 17.02.2005 in total Rs. 7,510/- has been paid. On 18.10.2004 when the Complainant paid Rs.1,210/- the (Contd.......... 2) - 2 - receipt issued to him showed that charges against the bill up to 2/2002. Up to 2/2002 the charge leviable upon the Complainant is Rs.2,754/- that is charge for 27 months and the amount comes only Rs.2,754/-. Whereas by the instruction of the Opposite Party the complainant had to remit Rs. 4,210/-. The excess amount of Rs.1,456/- is remitted by the Complainant. On 13.10.2004 t he Complainant went to the Opposite Party's Office for the remittance of the balance amount. The amount liable to be paid by the complainant towards arrear for 41 months from March 2002 to July 2005 will be Rs.1,882/-. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 to clear the debt. In another calculation from December 1999 to July 2005 for the period of 68 months the amount payable was Rs.6,936/-. But therein towards the installments, the Complainant remitted Rs.7,510/- in short Rs.574/- in excess was paid. There may be a direction not to terminate the water connection and to withdraw the notice demanding Rs.11,422/-. The Complainant is to be paid Rs.25,000/- by the Opposite Party for their deficiency in service. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. The complaint is not maintainable and more over the Opposite Party has no connection with the Complainant. The Complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Party. One Renuka Nethiar the building owner is the consumer of the water supply No.35 under the Meenangadi Project. In 13.01.1999 the connection of water supply was given to Mrs. Renuka Nethiar. The Consumer is entitled to remit the monthly charge of every months. Whereas in this particular case the consumer paid bill of Rs.3,000/- after laps of 33 months for the period in between 1/1999 and 9/2000. Up to the period of 3/99 commencing from 1/99 the monthly payment was to be Rs.571/- for every months and afterwards the amount charge monthly was Rs.102/- for the following periods. If the amount become due on non payment the interest levied is Rs.10/-. Whereas if the due amount is above Rs. 500/-, the consumer is liable to give interest at the rate of 2%. Up to 10/2001 the consumer has to pay Rs.4,715/- and Rs.3,000/- was only paid and from 10/2001 onwards the (Contd.......... 3) - 3 - consumer has not paid the charge. The meter became faulty and it was known on inspection. The notice No.296 was issued to the consumer to substitute the defective meter with a meter in working condition. If the meter becomes defective it is the responsibility of the consumer to replace it with correct one. The new meter was installed on 04.08.2004 after the installation of the new meter the charge was considerably less. Towards the due amount the Complainant filed an application to facilitate him the payment in installments. Even the due amount was allowed to be paid in installments the Consumer paid is Rs.1,000/- on 04.08.2004, Rs.1,210/- on 18.10.2004 and Rs.2,300/- on 17.02.2005. The Consumer was given a notice No.556 on 10.10.2005 showing that the connection will be dropped, if the due amount was not paid. Even of receiving the disconnection notice the consumer was not ready to clear the liability and the water connection was detached on 22.02.2006. The claim of the consumer that the due amount is readily paid is absolutely false. Up to March 2006 the consumer has to give the Opposite Party Rs.13,258/- as due amount. The water authority is a board acting under the and rules and regulations of the government. The points in considerations are: 1.Whether the Complainant is a consumer? 2.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?. 3.Relief and costs. Point No.1: The Complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.A1 is the consumer meter card issued to one Renuka Nethiar with consumer No.35. Ext.A2 is the provisional invoice card, the monthly amount to be remitted as per which is Rs.102/-. Ext.A3 series are the receipts 4 in numbers of the receipts given to Renuka Nethiar towards the amount received. It is admitted that the (Contd..........4) - 4 - Complainant has not produced any documents to show that he is the proprietor of the Madhuriya bakery and the room is under the occupancy under tenancy of the Complainant. There is no water connection in the name of the Complainant. The agreement for water connection was in between Renuka Nethiar and the Water Authority. The Assistant Engineer of the Water Authority is examined as OPW1. Ext. B1 is the application given by Renuka Nethiar for water supply. The Ownership Certificate of the building is Ext. B2. Ext. B6 is the agreement executed between the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Water Authority and Renuka Nethiar. It is not seen in none of the documents that the Complainant is a Consumer of the supply of water and no evidence is bring forth to show that the Complainant is the proprietor of the Madhuriya bakery. The point No.1 is found against the Complainant. Points No.2 and 3: The points No.2 and 3 do not require an elaborate consideration. Being the point No.1 is found against the Complainant. In the result, it is held that being the Complainant is neither a consumer nor beneficiary of the Consumer. The complaint is dismissed and no order upon costs. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 5th day of February 2008. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True Copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. (Contd.........5) - 5 - APPENDIX Witnesses for Complainant: PW1. Ismayil. Complainant. Witnesses for Opposite Party: OPW1. Thankaraj. Assistant Engineer, Water Authority. Exhibits for Complainant: A1. Consumer Meter Card A2. Provisional Invoice Card. A3 Series Receipt. (4 in numbers) A4. Bill. dt: 13.10.2005. Exhibits for Opposite Party: B1. Photo copy of Application. B2. Photo copy of Ownership Certificate. dt:05.05.1998 B3. Photo copy of Water/Sever Connection work Order dt: 26.11.1998. B4. Photo copy of Certificate. B5. Photo copy of Connection Order. dt:12.01.1999. B6. Photo copy of Agreement B7. Photo copy of Disconnection Advice. dt: 10.10.2005. B8 3 sheets. Statement. B9. Authorisation Letter. dt: 25.10.2007. PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

......................K GHEEVARGHESE
......................SAJI MATHEW