BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 10th day of May 2017
Filed on : 12-08-2015
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.543/2015
Between
Christava Mahilalayam Higher : Complainant
Secondary School, (By Adv. M.R. Sudheendran)
rep. by its authorized Director,
Thomas Varghese,
S/o. M.K. Varghese,
Thottumugham P.O.,
Aluva-683 105.
And
1. Kerala Water Authority : Opposite parties
Rep. by its Managing Director.,
Trivandrum.
2. The Executive Engineer,
P.H. Division,
Kerala Water Authority,
Aluva.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
P.H. Division,
Kerala Water Authority,
Aluva.
4. The Assistant Engineer,
P.H. Section. No. II,
Kerala Water Authority,
Aluva.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant's case
2. The complainant is the director of M/s. Christava Mahilalayam Higher Secondary School, Aluva, an unaided Educational Institution and a Consumer of the opposite party Kerala Water Authority with consumer number KZD 163/N. In addition to the water supply provided to the opposite party there are 3 wells in the school compound. The complainant had remitted the water charges up to February 2011, as the meter was defective it was tested and replaced with a new one in February 2011 Thereafter the opposite party had issued a bill on 31-03-2012 in which water charges up to February 2012 was shown as Rs. 48,839/- and the monthly charges is shown as 3,548/-. Since the water storied tank of the complainant is at higher level the water supplied by the opposite party would never reach the storage tank. That fact was informed to the opposite party orally and in writing on 01-11-2012. Thereafter the opposite party issued another bill on 31-10-2012 in which the water charges went up to 83173/- till September 2013 and the monthly charges shown was 3,550/-. The meter was said to have been working. However, since the bill was very high the opposite party directed the complainant to get the meter tested. Meanwhile on 28-02-2013 the water charges came up to 1,05,088/- and the monthly charges was increased to Rs. 3,570/-. The opposite party issued another bill on 30-1-2013 claiming Rs. 1,47,728/- . Therefore the complainant approached the Executive Engineer who had threatend and demanded disconnection in the event of non-payment of arrears. The complainant even represented his case in the Revenue Adalath held on 03-03-2015. The authorities of the opposite parties were not amenable to reduce the bill. According to the complainant there was no proper billing and actual consumption was not noted. Therefore there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. the complainant seeks to set aside the bills dated 31-03-2012, 31-10-2012, 28-02-2013 , 30-09-2013 and notice dated 07-09-2013. The complainant also seeks a direction against the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and costs of the proceedings.
3. The opposite parties to whom notice was served appeared and resisted the complaint contending inter-alia as follows:
4. The complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of definition clause Section 2 (1) (d) of the C.P. Act. The complainant is functioning with many teachers and employees and collecting fees for the education and facilities provided including supply of water. The services of the opposite parties was availed by the complainant for commercial purposes. On 28-02-2011 a new water meter was installed and proper reading was being recorded. The allegation of the complainant that the non-availability of the water is baseless. The complainant did not attend the revenue adalath for a settlement. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The bills issued are as per the regulations and no excess amount was claimed through the bill. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exbts. A1 to A7 on he side of the complainant the opposite party marked Exbt. B1.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The following issues were settled for consideration.
i. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
ii Whether the opposite party is proved to have committed any deficiency in service?
iii. reliefs and costs.
8. Issue Nos. i&ii. This complaint have been filed on 12-08-2015. As per the complaint deficiency in service was alleged from 31-03-2012 when the complainant received an alleged excess bill. The complainant seek setting aside of such excess bill dated 31-03-2012 as well . The complaint filed on 12-08-2015 claiming such a relief in respect of 2012 is barred by time U/s. 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party alleged that the complainant was collecting fee for providing the facilities for students including the usage of water. Even though no specific amount is collected by the school authorities exclusively by the usage of water, it has to be presumed that the collection of the fees is inclusive of the service by providing water to the students. PW1 has sworn to, to the fact that there were about 1,000 students and 60 teachers in the school. We also admitted that the school is an unaided school and it collects fees from the students. He admitted that the water connection is a non-domestic water connection . It was also brought out in evidence that on 15-03-2013 when the water meter was checked it was found that it was not the very same one which was installed by the opposite party on 28-02-2011. A notice was served on the complainant on 07-07-2013 to disconnect the water supply for non-payment of bill. The complainant has a case that there was not even a drop of water in the tap provided by the opposite party. This fact also would go to show that the grievance of the complainant is originated as early in 2012, and the complainant had approached this Forum only in the year 2015, supporting the finding that the complaint is time barred.
9. Since the complainant has been collecting fee from the students for the services provided by the school to them (including the usage of water ) we find that the complainant was using the water for commercial purposes. In that view of the matter we find that the complainant will not come within the purview of the definition of 'consumer'. The complaint is not maintainable on that score alone. Even on merit the complainant cannot claim that he suffered any deficiency in service at the hands of the opposite party. The water authority was only claiming the bill as per the regulation and we are unable to sit in judgment over the demands so made by the opposite party based on clear documents. We find the issue therefore against the complainant.
10. Issue No. iii. Having found issue numbers (i) and (ii) against the complainant we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10th day of May 2017
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent
APPENDIX
Complainants Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of consumer bill dt. 30-04-2012
A2 : Letter dt. 01-11-2012
A3 : Consumer bill dt. 30-11-2012
A4 : Consumer bill dt. 28-02-2013
A5 : Letter dt. 24-06-2013
A6 : Consumer bill dt. 31-10-2013
A7 : Copy of notice dt. 07-11-2013
Opposite party's Exhibits:
Exbt. B1 : Consumer details as on
dated 30-11-2013
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post : By Hand:
