O R D E R

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II):

                   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. The brief fact of this complaint is as follows:  The complainant is represented by the power of attorney holder, Mr. Philip, brother of the complainant.  The water connection provided by the opposite party vide Con.No.THT/743/N is using by the complainant.  On 18.01.2011, the complainant remitted Rs.1,524/- as water charges for a period of 1/2011 to 12/2011.  Further, the complainant was not getting sufficient water and many complaints in this regard were also given to the opposite party.  But the opposite party has not done any positive action for providing sufficient water to the complainant in spite of the complainant’s complaint.  So the complainant constructed a well as well as a bore well for the source of water.  The complainant intimated the opposite party for disconnecting the water connection they haven’t taken any steps to disconnect water connection.  While so, the complainant received a bill from the opposite party for the water charges for an amount of Rs.43,921/- for a period from February 2011 to January 2014.  He paid the amount and intimated the opposite party for disconnecting the water connection.  At the time of inspection, it was found that no water was flowing through the connection pipe laid to complainant’s building.  As per the complaint, the bill amount of Rs.43,921/- was illegally calculated.  The opposite party issued a new bill of Rs.67,810/- dated 20.04.2015 which was also unjust and unfair.   The above said act of the opposite party is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and deficiency in service.  Hence this complainant filed this complaint for an order to direct the opposite party to pay back Rs.43,921/- which was paid by the complainant and also directing the opposite party to withdraw the demand for the arrears of Rs.67,810/- dated 20.04.2015 along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

                   3. The opposite party entered appearance and filed their version with the following contentions:  It is contended that the complainant’s case is without any bonafides and the case is not maintainable.  The meter reading shown in the bills are correct.  The complainant was a consumer (No.THT/743/N) of the opposite party from 18.01.2011.  The said consumer had remitted Rs.1,524/- to opposite party on 18.01.2011 as advance water charges for the period of January 2011 to December 2011 calculating a minimum charge of Rs.127/- per month.  On 03.02.2014, the complainant had paid Rs.43,921/- as dues from February 2011 to January 2014.  This bill was issued on the basis of the actual consumption as per the meter reading.  The connection was not disconnected for want of proper application as well as disconnection fees as per Water Supply Act.  From 01/2013 onwards the meter was also not working.  This matter was intimated to the complainant on 29.01.2013, 25.09.2013 & 05.07.2014.  The opposite party has given notice to replace the faulty meter.  When a meter becomes faulty, the liability to replace the same is on the consumer.  The consumer replaced the faulty meter in November 2014.  But on subsequent inspection, opposite party understood that the complainant was drawing the water through the previous faulty meter only.  Notice was issued to the complainant and supply was disconnected on 18.05.2015.  On 20.04.2015, opposite party issued a new bill of Rs.67,810/- on the basis of the previous consumption.  According to the opposite party, what all act done by them are legal and as per the norms and rule of the opposite party and hence no deficiency in service from their part.  With the above contentions, opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.  The complaint is not entitled for any compensation or other relief.    

                   4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points are to be considered:

1. Whether the petition is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

                   5. Point Nos.1 to 3:-  For the sake of convenience we are considering Point Nos.1 to 3 together.  The complainant’s case is that he was a consumer of the opposite party and he was not a defaulter to opposite party.  The complainant’s allegation is that they were served a bill for Rs.67,810/- on 20.04.2015 alleging that the complainant has consumed water for such an amount.  According to the complainant, they have not consumed such quantity of water because the complainant dug a well and bore well as source of water.  So their consumption was very low when compared to the present bill.  Therefore, the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party for disconnecting the water supply.  The said bill is without any bonafide and the complainant is not liable to pay any amount as demanded by them and hence they pleaded that the impugned bill is liable to be set aside.

                   6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the power of attorney holder filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 8 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A8.  Ext.A1 is the copy of the power of attorney.  Ext.A2 is the bill of Rs.1,524/- dated 18.01.2011 as water consumption charges from 1/2011 to 12/2011.  Ext.A3 is the bill of Rs.43,921/- dated 03.02.2014 as water consumption charges from February 2011 to January 2014.  Ext.A4 is the provisional invoice card.  Ext.A5 series are the photographs of the meter reading.  Ext.A6 series are the copies of the applications dated 07.05.2015 and 19.05.2015 to the opposite party for disconnecting the water supply.  Ext.A7 is the bill of Rs.67,810/- dated 20.04.2015 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant.  Ext.A8 is the cash receipt of the meter purchased on 25.11.2014 along with warranty card. 

                   7. In this case, even though the opposite party filed a version, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour but cross-examined PW1.

                   8. On the basis of the contentions of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on records and found that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and the opposite party have issued a bill of Rs.67,810/- dated 20.04.2015 vide Ext.A7.  The question to be considered is whether Ext.A7 bill is legally sustainable or not?

                   9. On a perusal of the evidence of PW1 the only grievance of the complainant is that water is not reached in his premises through the pipeline installed by the opposite party.  The answer given by the opposite party that there is no interruption of the supply of water and this petition has been filed only to avoid payment of the meter charges.  The opposite party contends that the meter became faulty.  So opposite party issued notices to the complainant on 29.01.2013, 25.09.2013 and 05.07.2014 for replacing the faulty meter.  The complainant purchased a meter only on 25.11.2014.  But at the time of the subsequent inspection opposite party found that the complainant was drawing the water through the previous faulty meter.  The complainant’s power of attorney holder is examined as PW1.  In the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the complainant have six flats in the same premises and there is only one water connection from opposite party.  The said water connection comes under non-domestic category and he further answered that 3 flats were given for rent.  PW1 deposed that the meter was working but on the compulsion of the opposite party he purchased a new meter on 25.11.2014.  It is marked as Ext.A8.  At the time of cross-examination of PW1, through PW1 opposite party marked 2 documents.  The documents are the copy of the disconnection notice it is marked as Ext.B1 series (subject to proof).   In cross-examination, PW1 deposed that he has not installed the newly purchased meter because the prayer meter is functioning properly.  In the light of the evidence adduced by PW1, it can be attributed that he used the water connection for his flat building and out of 6 flats, 3 of them are rented out.  It is also answered that, “Fsâ connection non-domestic catagoryþ-bn DÅ-XmWv”.  It is pertinent to see that PW1 admitted that the category of water connection to his building is under ‘Non-domestic Scheme’.  As per Section 2(d)(ii) C.P. Act it reads, “hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose”.  On the basis of this definition, it can be easily come to a conclusion that complainant’s water connection is not at all a domestic connection.  If so, this complainant is not a consumer as per Sec.2(d)(ii) of C.P. Act, 1986.  When we find that the complainant is not a consumer as such this case is not sustainable also.  Hence there is any need to go into the details of evidence of this case.  It is pertinent to see that the opposite party has challenged the maintainability of this case through their version and at the time of cross-examination.  Opposite party succeeded to brought this fact before the Forum.  Therefore, we find that the complaint is not maintainable and no deficiency in service find against the opposite party.  Hence Point No.1 to 3 found accordingly.    

                   12. In the result, we pass the following orders:

                    (1) The case is dismissed.

                    (2)  No Order of Cost

                   Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of August, 2016.

                                                                                                 (Sd/-)

                                                                                           Sheela Jacob,

                                                                                            (Member – II)

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President)  :  (Sd/-)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)               :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  P.C. Philip

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Copy of the power of attorney executed by the complainant (subject to 

        proof). 

A2 :  Bill dated 18.01.2011 for Rs.1,524/- as water consumption charges  

        from 1/2011 to 12/2011. 

A3 :  Bill of Rs.43,921/- dated 03.02.2014 as water consumption charges  

        from February 2011 to January 2014. 

A4 :  Provisional invoice card. 

A5 series : photographs (3 Nos.) of the meter reading. 

A6 series :  Copies of the applications dated 07.05.2015 and 19.05.2015

                  and postal receipt. 

A7 : Bill of Rs.67,810/- dated 20.04.2015 issued by the opposite party in  

       the name of the complainant. 

A8 :  Cash receipt of the meter purchased on 25.11.2014 and warranty card.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

B1  :  Copy of letter dated Nil. sent by the Asst. Executive Engineer to the 

         Complainant (subject to proof).

                                                                                  (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Eapen, Punnamoottil House, Karikulam.P.O.,

                    Pazhavangadi Village, Ranni Taluk.

                    Rep. By his Brother & P/A. Holder)

              (2)  Asst.Engineer, Kerala Water Authority,

                    Public Health Sub Division, Ranni. P.O., Ranni Taluk,

                    Pathanamthitta Dist. – 689 672.

              (3)  The Stock File.