IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 19th day of June 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 8/2020 (Filed on 14/01/2020)
Complainant : Ratheesh.S.Chirayil,
Chirayil House,
Thirunakkara P.O,
Puthiyathrikkovil, Kottayam.
(By Adv: Smitha Mohan)
Vs.
Opposite party : The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
P.H Sub Division,
Collectorate P.O, Kottayam.
O R D E R
SRI.K.M. ANTO(MEMBER)
The complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party having non-domestic connection having consumer No.M17/71/N with consumer ID No.23155119985. The complainant’s father had applied for domestic water connection. The opposite party without any application or consent had converted the water connection to non-domestic category. The complainant is getting huge water bills, and on enquiry with the opposite party, it was informed that the connection was changed to non-domestic Connection. On 04/12/2018 complainant received a bill for Rs.21,481/-. The complainant had requested to change the meter. But the opposite party failed to replace the meter till date. The opposite party had issued a bill for Rs. 86,753/- on 05/12/2019.
The act of the opposite party is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. This complaint is filed to set aside the bill dated 05/12/2019 for an amount of Rs.86,753/-, and for changing the water connection of the complainant to domestic category, also for getting a compensation of Rs.10, 000/- with cost Rs 5,000/- for this litigation.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed their version.
The version of the opposite party is as follows. The water connection having Number M17/71/ND was given to C.K Madhavan. The complainant had not given application for changing the ownership of the connection and had not remitted the water charges after April 2018. A domestic connection was given but thereafter the complainant was running a lodge in the building and the connection was changed to non-domestic category on 08/12/2015. Water bills under non-domestic category were paid up to April 2018. The allegation that on enquiry about the bills, the opposite party suggested that may be due to discrepancy in the meter readings is false. If the meter is faulty then complainant had to issue notice and to change the meter on the consumer’s expenses. The complainant had not done this. The water bills were issued only for the water used by the complainant and the complainant is legally bound to remit the bill amount. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits A1 to A2. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked Exhibit B1.
On the basis of the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence adduced we would like to consider the following points.
(1) Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and (2) If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
POINTS 1 & 2 :
On going through the complaint and evidence, it is clear that the complainant is using the water from the connection No.M17/71/ND, in the name of the complainant’s father.
Exbt. A1 is the bill dated 05/12/2019 for an amount of Rs.86,753/- and Exbt.A2 is the disconnection notice dated 6/12/2019 demanding to pay Rs.86,753/- within 16/12/2019 failing which the connection will be disconnected.
Exbt. B1 is the Consumer Personal Ledger of the complainant. Exbt. B1 shows that the category of the complainant was changed from Domestic to Non-Domestic category on 08/12/2015. The complainant failed to produce any evidence to show that he had filed complaint regarding the category change to the opposite party after 08/12/2015 till date. As per Exbt. B1, on 06/06/2018 there were no arrears as due; this proves that the complainant had remitted water bills from 08/12/2015 to 06/06/2018 as Non-Domestic Consumer. No further payments of water charge were seen paid by the complainant.
Even though the complainant alleges that he had requested for change of water meter and opposite party failed to change the water meter, no evidence is produced to establish this claim of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant had remitted water charges from 08/12/2015 to 06/06/2018 as a non-domestic Consumer.
As per Rule 16 (b) of the Kerala Water Authority(Water Supply) Regulations 1991, the Assistant Executive Engineer shall convert a domestic connection to a non-domestic connection from such date as he may deem fit for the purpose of collecting water charges when the nature of occupancy of a premise is reported, by an officer duly authorized by him or the authority, to have changed or the water supplied to the premises used for building purpose or other industrial, commercial or trade activities necessitating revision of tariff. Thus the opposite party is duly authorized to change the category from domestic to Non domestic category.
Apart from the Exbt.A1 Bill and Exbt.A2 demand notice, the complainant failed to produce any evidence to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 19th day of June, 2023
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
Ext. A1 - Copy of bill dated 05/12/2019 for Rs 86,753/-
issued by the opposite party
Ext.A2 - Copy of disconnection notice dated 06/12/2019 for Rs.86,753/-
Exhibits from the side of Opposite party :
Ext.B1 - Copy of Consumer Personal Ledger
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
