BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 263/2004 Filed on 24.06.2004

Dated : 30.04.2011

Complainant :

Santhoshkumar, Soubhagya, Sreemuruga Buildings, Kattakada.

(By adv. V.S. Harikrishnan)

Opposite parties :

1. Kerala Water Authority represented by its Managing Director, Jala Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Water Supply Division, Kattakada.

(By adv. P. Dileep Khan & Santhamma Thomas)

This O.P having been taken as heard on 15.03.2011, the Forum on 30.04.2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant is the owner and proprietor of M/s Jayavinayaka Kalyanamandapam situated in an extent of 66.500 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 500/9 of Kulathummal Village belonging to the complainant. The complainant obtained water connection in the year 1997 from the 2^nd opposite party as consumer No. KTP 604 for using water in the Kalyanamandapam in connection with marriages and other various functions in the Kalyanamandapam. Eversince after obtaining the water connection from the 2^nd opposite party there was no regular water supply to the complainant. In fact the complainant has to depend upon other water sources in order to meet the requirements in the Kalyanamandapam. The complainant could get only a small quantity of water supply in the early days after obtaining water connection in the year 1997. Thereafter there was no regular water supply till date. The complainant received a bill No. 13852 dated 12.02.2004 issued by the 2^nd opposite party wherein an amount of Rs. 14,601/- is shown as the amount to be remitted being the water charges. Then the complainant made a detailed representation to the 2^nd opposite party specifically stating that the meter is not properly working and the amount arrived at by the 2^nd opposite party is highly exorbitant and issue a revised bill after replacing the defective meter. But the 2^nd opposite party did not take any steps to replace the defective meter. Thereafter the complainant again received a letter dated 06.04.2004 together with bill No. 1007 dated 06.04.2004 issued by the 2^nd opposite party containing false and frivolous statements. The amount seen stated in the bill dated 06.04.2004 as Rs. 15,207/- said to be the arrears during the period from 1/97 to 3/04 is highly exorbitant. The complainant has not consumed that much of water as stated in the bill due to non-supply of water to the complainant. Hence the complainant is not liable to remit the water charges as required in the bill. The failure of the 2^nd opposite party to provide regular water supply to the complainant is purely a deficiency in service.

2^nd opposite party has filed their version for and on behalf of 1^st opposite party also contending as follows: The consumer No. KTP/604/ND is a non-domestic connection provided in January, 1997 to Jaya Vinayaka Kalyanamandapam, Kattakkada. The complainant himself has admitted that the mandapam is being used for marriage and other functions, which requires huge quantities of water. The use is for commercial purposes, hence the complainant will not come under the definition of a consumer and the matter cannot be a consumer dispute also. Hence the complaint itself is not maintainable. The complainant is using water supplied by the Kerala Water Authority and there is regular supply of water. A bill for Rs. 14,601/- was issued to the complainant and it is the bill for the use of water by the complainant. That the water meter of the complainant is not working. The fact that the meter is not working was brought to the notice of the complainant by way of notice dated 16.07.2002. The complainant has not taken any steps to replace the defective meter. The complainant has not paid a single paise as water charges from the beginning. Even though the complainant was issued with bills regularly, he did not care to pay his arrears. Upto the day of disconnection on 15.04.2004 the complainant has used the water supplied by the 1^st opposite party. There is no deficiency in service from the part of the 1^st opposite party. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

Complainant has filed affidavit. He has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P4 on the part of the complainant. One witness has filed affidavit on the part of the opposite parties and has been examined as DW1 and marked Exts. D1 to D5 also.

The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

Points (i) & (ii):- There is no dispute that the connection in dispute is a non-domestic one. The complainant has admitted that the connection has been obtained for using water in the marriage hall in connection with marriages and other functions. The allegation of the complainant is that the complainant could get only a small quantity of water in the initial stage in 1997 and that there was no water supply after that till date and that the complainant has received a bill claiming Rs. 14,601/- towards water charges which according to the complainant is exorbitant. That the complainant again received another bill dated 06.04.2004 claiming Rs. 15,207/- said to be the arrears from 01/97 to 03/04 which also according to the complainant is highly exorbitant. The complainant further pleads that though he had informed the opposite parties regarding the non-working of the water meter and his willingness to install new water meter at his own expense, no steps were taken by opposite parties to instal new meter and that since there was no regular water supply till date, the bill has been prepared on the basis of assumption which is highly irregular. The opposite parties contend that though the fact regarding non-working of the water meter was brought to the complainant's notice no steps were taken to replace the same. Further opposite parties contend that the complainant has not paid a single paise as water charges. During cross examination of PW1, opposite parties' counsel had put a specific question “97മുതല്‍ 2004 വരെ ഒരു രൂപയെങ്കിലും അടച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടോ? (Q) Disconnect ചെയ്യുന്നതുവരെ bill തന്നിട്ടില്ല, വെള്ളവും കിട്ടിയിട്ടില്ല. (A). From the above it is evident that the complainant has not made any payment towards water charges. If at all the complainant had no regular supply of water, the complainant ought to have informed the same to the authorities concerned in time. But as long as complainant has failed to establish with cogent evidence that he had informed the opposite parties regarding the non-supply of water, the complainant is bound to pay at least the minimum water charges fixed as per law. PW1 has deposed that he has not furnished any document to substantiate his contention that due to non-availability of water from KWA, he is consuming water from other alternate sources. The complainant has never informed the opposite parties to disconnect the service connection for non-availability of water. Complainant admits as PW1 that he has not informed the opposite party to disconnect the service. Further, as PW1 complainant admits that he had received a letter dated 16.07.2002 from the opposite parties informing him regarding the replacement of defective water meter. But the complainant has not pleaded the same in the complaint. Further, PW1 has deposed that he was not served with water bills regularly and meter readings were also not taken. If that be so, as a consumer of KWA, the complainant also has a duty to enquire about the non-issuance of bill. Complainant has not furnished any evidence to show that he had raised any complaint regarding non-issuance of bills. Complainant's counsel while cross examining DW1 had put a question that “97-ല്‍ കണക്ഷന്‍ കൊടുത്തിട്ട് 2003- ല്‍ bill കൊടുത്തു. ആയതിന് എന്താണ് കാരണം? Provisional Invoice card കൊടുത്തിട്ടുണ്ട്. അത് പ്രകാരം പൈസ അടക്കാത്തത് കൊണ്ടാണ് billകൊടുത്തത്”. To the question put by the counsel for the complainant that the complainant was not issued with a Provisional invoice card for which DW1 had deposed that Provisional invoice card is given to the consumers at the time of taking connection.

From the above discussions we come to the conclusion that the complainant has not bothered to make any payment after taking connection nor has he informed the opposite parties regarding non-supply of water as alleged. The complainant has not requested the opposite parties to disconnect the supply also for non-supply of water. Hence we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed and the complaint is only to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of April 2011.

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 263/2004

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Santhosh Kumar

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Meter reading bill dated 12.02.2004

P2 - Letter dated 06.04.2004 issued by opposite party.

P3 - Bill No. 1007 dated 06.04.2004

P4 - Copy of consumer's meter card.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - A. Madhusoodanan

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of letter dated 16.07.2002

D2 - Copy of meter reading bill

D3 - Copy of letter dated 06.04.2004 issued by opposite party.

D4 - Copy of bill

D5 - Copy of consumer personal ledger.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT