DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 30th day of October 2024
Filed On: - 16.09.2022
PRESENT
Shri. D.B. Binu Hon’ble President
Shri. V. Ramachandran Hon’ble Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N Hon’ble Member
CC No.421 OF 2022
COMPLAINANT
Asha.P.K., Aanees, Villa, Padamukal, Palachuvadu- Road, Kakkanadu-682030, Ph:9744152881.
(Complainant Rep. By. Adv. Mohammed Haseeb Ahmed VM, Thooba, Vazhakkala House, Thrikkakara PO, Kakkanadu, Pin- 682 021)
Vs
OPPOSITE PARTY
Kerala Water Authority(KWA), Trikkakara Regional Office, Olimukal, Near Air Force Office, Kakkanad.
(OP Rep. By. Adv. Shine Jacob, Karunakaran Sapthathi Mandiram, Puzhakkarakavu Road, Kacherithazham, Muattupuzha )
FINAL ORDER
D.B. Binu, President
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant, a tenant residing in the house of Mr. Ashraf K.M., a consumer of the Water Authority, has raised a dispute regarding an excessively high water bill. On September 15, 2021, the complainant received a bill amounting to Rs. 1,94403, which is extraordinarily high compared to previous bills that ranged between Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 2,000.
The complainant alleges that the sudden spike in the bill is the result of a faulty meter. Despite the presence of residents in the house, the complainant stated that such a massive increase in water usage is implausible, even with the leak.
Upon reporting the issue to the Water Authority officials, the complainant was informed that the matter could be discussed and potentially resolved during the Adalat. However, the complainant was unable to attend the Adalat at the Water Authority’s Ernakulam office on the scheduled date. Subsequently, the opposite party – the Water Authority officials – proposed an unreasonable settlement of Rs. 1,64,000, with half the amount payable immediately and the rest in instalments, if the complainant could not attend the Adalat.
The complainant asserts that the bill is excessive and caused by the malfunction of the water meter, not by actual consumption. She seeks a thorough inspection of the meter, a reduction of the bill, and necessary disciplinary actions against responsible officials, if found negligent. The complainant requests fair and immediate action to correct the bill and replace the faulty meter to avoid further discrepancies.
The complainant urges the Water Authority to address this matter promptly and reassess the bill, ensuring a just resolution without imposing an undue financial burden.
2. NOTICE:
The commission issued a notice to the opposite party, who subsequently filed their version.
3. THE VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
The Kerala Water Authority (KWA) contends that the complaint filed by the complainant is neither legally nor factually maintainable. The complainant is not their consumer and, therefore, the Consumer Commission lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this case.
The water connection, bearing consumer number TKK/16442/N, is registered to Sri. Ashraf for his three-storied commercial building at Padamugal, which includes a ground-floor office and two floors functioning as a hostel. The water bills were issued based on meter readings, with payments made only until October 2020. No payments have been made since, and the disputed bill for September 2021 includes arrears from that period.
KWA notes that there was an abnormal increase in water consumption from January to September 2021, with significant readings recorded on 19.03.2021 (254 KL), 19.07.2021 (3389 KL), and 15.09.2021 (959 KL). The authority claims this could result from actual usage or a leakage, for which KWA holds no responsibility.
The complainant is liable to pay the billed amount, which is calculated based on the meter readings. KWA denies any deficiency in service and maintains that its officers have acted in good faith. They stated that the complaint was an attempt to avoid payment of legitimate dues owed to the government.
In conclusion, KWA requests that the complaint be dismissed with costs, asserting that the reliefs sought by the complainant are unsustainable, and there is no cause of action against the authority.
3. Evidence:
The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit but provided one supporting document.
- Copy of Demand and Disconnection Notice
4. Points for Consideration:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
iv) Costs of the proceedings, if any?
5. The issues mentioned above are considered together and answered as follows:
The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit before the commission to support his case. Despite being given several chances, the complainant consistently neglected to substantiate his claims. Additionally, the complainant failed to present his evidence and was notably absent on the initial dates of the case, demonstrating a pattern of non-attendance. Consequently, the commission directed the registry to inform the complainant on February 08, 2024, to appear and submit evidence. The registry contacted the complainant by phone regarding the required appearance and further steps. However, due to the complainant's ongoing absence and failure to provide evidence, the commission must proceed with resolving the complaint based on the available evidence. Despite multiple opportunities to comply, the complainant has neither submitted the necessary evidence nor shown interest in pursuing the case.
In a series of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. Consequently, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party.
SGS India Ltd vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849
In this case, it was held that:
“The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a Judgment of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr., this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.”
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims of deficiency in service or negligence by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, and no relief is granted to the complainant. We have decided not in favour of the complainant on all the issues mentioned above. After careful consideration, we found that the case presented by the complainant is meritless. As a result, the following orders have been issued.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 30th day of October 2024
Sd/-
D.B. Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order,
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
NIL
OPPOSITE PARTY’S EVIDENCE
NIL
Date of Despatch
By Hand ::
By post ::
AKR/
Order in CC No. 421/2022
Date: 30/10/2024
