BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 19th day of September 2017
Filed on : 21/04/2017
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.157/2017
Between
C.G. Mary, : Complainant
Director, (party-in-person)
Gen Sikshan Sansthan,
Ernakulam, Peruvaram-683 513
And
1. Asst. Executive Engineer, : Opposite parties
Kerala Water Authority, (Party-in-person)
Water Supply Sub Division,
North Paravur-683 513.
2.Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
Water Supply Sub Division,
Kochi-18.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Complainant's case
2. This is a complaint filed by Smt. C.G. Mary, Director, Jan Shikshan Sansthan, Peruvaram, Ernakulam-683 513, Ernakulam. The complainant claims that she is a consumer of water supply provided by the opposite party M/s. Kerala Water Authority with Consumer No. NPR/5059/N. She filed the complaint before the Water Authority, Paravur alleging excess amount shown in the water bill. The water connection was taken in the year 2009 and the 1st opposite opposite party was supplied to the complainant only during August 2014. The total reading after 60 months of usage was for 491. A bill was provided to the opposite party claiming that Rs. 250/- towards bimonthly water charge and Rs. 542/- as fine. The total arrears shown in the bill was Rs. 13,416/-. The matter was complaint before the opposite party and the opposite party had instructed the complainant to pay Rs. 7,343/- towards the water charges and assured that the balance amount should be remitted on an application to be filed by the complainant. Accordingly an application was given by the complainant on 23-08-2014 as per the office communication Jss-ekm/101/8-16/2014. During the next month when the complainant was ready to pay the water bill, that was not accepted by the opposite party as per letter dated 02-12-2014. Therefore a complaint was given to the Divisional Executive Engineer of the opposite party on 10-12-2014 and the matter was referred to adalath for settlement. The complainant and the opposite parties participated in the adalatlh and the complainant was informed that there was excess amount in the account of the complainant and the matter was accordingly settled in the adalath. Again the opposite party had issued another communication to the complainant demanding the previous arrears, ignoring the fact that the matter was settled in the adalath earlier. The practice of demanding fine without providing a bill by the opposite party is a deficiency in service and therefore the complainant alleges that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant is not liable to make payment as demanded by the opposite party Water Authority. Hence the complaint.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed a joint version resisting the complaint.
4. When the matter came up for complainant's evidence the complainant produced and marked 14 documents as Exbts. A1 to A14 in additional to the oral evidence of PW1, the complainant. The opposite party did not adduce any oral evidence but marked Exbt. B1. Heard both sides.
The following issues are settled for consideration. i.Whether the complainant had proved that she was a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986?
ii. Whether the complainant had proved that there was either deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?
iii. Reliefs and costs
Issue No. i&ii. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, at the out set argued that the complainant M/s. C.G. Mary, filed this complaint against the opposite party had no authority to represent the complainant M/s. Jan Shikshan Santhan, Ernakulam. The complainant is a Central Government Institution and the said institution has not authorized the complainant to file this complaint for and on behalf of the said Central Government Institution. The complainant relied on Exbts. A14 to prove that she was duly authorized by the Chairman of the Board of Management of Jan Shikshan Sansthan, Ernakulam to file this complaint. Exbt. A14 is a document dated 21-06-2017 whereas the complaint was filed on 21-04-2017. What is authorized as per Exbt. A14 is “only to handle all affairs of Jan Shikshan Sansthan, including the present petition filed before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam as CC/157/2017”. Exbt. A14 therefore is a post dated document authorizing the complainant to handle the complaint. Exbt. A14 does not show that the complainant was duly authorized to file the case for and on behalf of M/s. Gen Shikshan Sansthan, Ernakulam. The complainants not entitled to claim herself as a 'consumer' in this case. The Consumer to whom the Water Authority had provided services is one Mr. M.K. Devidasan and all notices and bills were issued in the name of said Mr. M.K. Devidasan. The Board represented by the complainant Smt. Mary had taken the building only for rent and while taking the building on rent, no intimation was given to the opposite party regarding any such handing over of possession of the building. Therefore there is no privity of contract between Smt. Mary or the Board with the opposite party. The very fact that all the communications regarding the calculation of water bills were issued in the name of Smt. M.K. Devidasan would go to show that the opposite party had accepted only Mr. M.K. Devidasan as the beneficiary of the service. Shri. Devidasan, the de jure consumer has not been made a party to this
complaint. There is no agreement between the opposite party and the present complainant with regard to any service condition.
7. The agreement for service was executed between the opposite party and Smt. M.K.Devidasan in respect of the supply of water by the parties and the terms and conditions thereon. In the absence of Shri. Devidasan as a party in this complaint, we find that the complainant can not make an independent complaint bereft of any mentioning of the name of the de jure beneficiary. As a transfer of the building for the usage of the complainant has not been notified to the opposite party, it can not be said that the complainant can be deemed as a beneficiary of the consumer. In that view of the matter we find that the present complainant can not maintain this complaint legitimately and the issues are therefore to be found against the complainant. The 2nd issue regarding the deficiency of service can not therefore be considered in favour of the complainant as she has already been found to be not a consumer.
8. Issue No. iii. Having found issue No. i and ii against the complainant, the complaint has claimed is not maintainable and is therefore liable to be dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 19th day of September 2017
Sd/-
Forwarded/By Order, Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Senior Superintendent Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Copy of order despatched on : By Post: By Hand:
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of demand and
disconnection notice
dt. 02-08-2014
A2 : Truecopy of letter dt. 23-08-2014
A3 : True copy of cheque dt. 29-08-2014
A4 : True copy of receipt dt. 02-08-2014
A5 : True copy of letter dt. 04-11-2014
A6 : True copy of letter dt. 10-12-2014
A7 : True copy of receipt dt. 09-02-2015
A8 : True copy of adalath order
dt.03-03-2015
A9 : True copy of letter dt. 04-08-2015
A10 : True copy of letter dt. 08-09-2015
A11 : True copy of demand and disconnection
Notice dt. 04-04-2017
A12 : True copy of demand and
disconnection notice
A13 : True copy of letter dt. 24-05-2-2017
A14 : True copy of letter dt. 21-06-2017
Opposite party's exhibits:
B1 : Consumer details
Depositions
PW1 : C.J. Mary
