ORDERS ON I.A. No.2

        This application is filed by the opposite party No.3 under section 2(1)(c) to 2(1)(g) of C.P.Act with a prayer to dismiss the complaint, the application is accompanied with affidavit of Commissioner, MCC, Mysuru.

The 1^st complainant is not a “consumer” since it is a legal entity, it cannot claim any right of consumer under C.P.Act.  Though 2^nd complainant is a “Consumer”, the meter is connected to his residence, he has right to claim under C.P.Act for his personal connection only and on behalf of publics, no reliefs can be sought for by the complainants.  Complainants are not Consumers.  The present complaint cannot be considered as complaint, there is no deficiency in service on behalf of opposite party No.3.  Thereby, sought for dismissal of the complaint as not maintainable.

To this I.A., the complainant No.1 has filed objections stating that it is a registered voluntary consumer organization and it can maintain a complaint under the C.P.Act.  Thereby, sought for dismissal of this I.A.

After hearing both sides, this I.A. No.2 is set down for orders.

The following points arose for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. What order?

Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- In the negative.

Point No.2:- As per the final order.

REASONS

Point No.1:- In the complaint, both complainants have sought for the following reliefs:-

1. Pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of prosecuting this complaint to each of the complainant.
2. Direct the opposite parties to correct all the deficiencies in service explained above within 6 months from the date of lodging this complaint.
3. Direct 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.200/- each to the consumers residing in Gokulam 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd stages having authorized water connections and deduct this amount from the water consumption bill issued to them which may be approximately 18 lakhs. 
4. To direct 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties to make suitable administrative arrangements to receive consumer grievances not only through telephone number 0821 6456000 but also at their various bill collection centers and given wide publicity.
5. Grant any other reliefs deemed fit by this Hon’ble Forum under the circumstances of the complaint in the form of directions to the appropriate authorities.  
6. Direct the opposite parties to innovate and implement easy procedures for redressal of consumer grievances so as to protect them from harassment and corrupt practices adopted by the staff of the opposite parties and as a first steps, they may be directed to submit a list of complaints received in a month, the action taken and time taken for redressal of consumer complaints to this Forum for at least a period of six months from the date of order so as to keep this Forum informed about the standard or service rendered by them.  

      Opposite party No.3 being MCC submits that there cannot be any “Consumer” and “Service Provider” relationship between complainant No.1 and this opposite party.  Though, complainant No.2 is a “Consumer” he can sought reliefs relating to connection bearing No.5255 only and thereby cannot claim any reliefs for and on behalf of publics.  Thereby, the present complaint is not maintainable and this Forum cannot grant the reliefs relating to the public interest of large number of publics.  Such power is not vested with this Forum and only remedy available to the complainants is only invoke the writ jurisdiction under the constitution and not before this Forum.

Whereas the complainant No.1 submits that it is a registered consumer organization, it can put forth its grievance for and on behalf of any of the complainants before this Forum.  Thereby, for and on behalf of complainant No.2, this complaint is filed which is maintainable.  But, the submission of the complainant No.1, cannot be accepted for the simple reasons, the reliefs sought for by the complainants in the main complaint is in the form of relief relating to general public who get water supply connection through opposite party Nos.1 and 3.  Thereby, complaint is not maintainable, and such submission of complainant No.1, cannot be accepted.

In fact, the complainant No.2 has approached Permanent Lok Adalath for public utility services at Mysuru in PLAP No.353/13, before the said Forum complainant No.2 not get any reliefs relating to public interest litigation.  Thereby, after closure of the proceedings before PLAP, complainant No.2 pursuing this public litigation through complainant No.1, which is alleged to be the registered consumer organization. In the circumstances, this Forum cannot grant the reliefs by exercising the jurisdiction of the Court under the constitution relating to a public interest litigation.  Thereby, the present complaint is not maintainable and on maintainability itself complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Rightly, the opposite party No.3 has filed this I.A.No.2 seeking the reliefs.  Accordingly, the point No.1 answered in the negative.

Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, complaint is not maintainable and I.A.No.2 filed by opposite party No.3 is to be entertained.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

I.A.No.2 filed by opposite party No.3 under section 2(1)(c) to 2(1)(g) of C.P.Act is hereby allowed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.

Give a copy of this order to both parties as per Rules.