SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI (MEMBER)<br /> <br /> Complainant Smt. Saradamma, Proprietrix, Vijaya Complex, Alappuzha has filed a complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The main contentions of the complainant is the 2nd opposite party, the Executive Engineer, Water Authority served a bill for Rs. 13,577/- that is arrears up to 12/06 and monthly charges of Rs. 102/-. Since the water supply was disconnected as early as 23-5-2002 and the complainant was denied of the right to get the facility of drinking water from 24-5-2002 the complainant was not ready to remit the amount. The complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party explained the position. But the 2nd opposite party was not turned up. Later complainant was served with a demand notice under Revenue Recovery on 23-6-07 by the 4th opposite party vide No. B6.210/07 Misc., K.Dis. B9.14685/07 for remitting an amount of Rs. 37,233/- i.e. for the arrears of 31-5-2002. Hence the complaint filed.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. They have filed Vakalath. But the version filed only by the 4th respondent. So other opposite parties are set exparte. 4th respondent’s version states that the complainant is legally bound to remit the amount.<br /> 3. On the side of the complainant produced 2 documents. Those were marked as Exts. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 bill dated 30-6-2002. It shows that the party has remitting Rs. 13,577/-. The bill further shows that amount was charged for the non-domestic purpose of the complainant. Ext. A2 is the Revenue Recovery notice dated 23-5-07 for a total sum of Rs. 37,233/-.<br /> 4. Considering the contentions of the parties this Forum raised the issue, “Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?”<br /> 5. On a perusal of the complaint it is shows that complainant is proprietrix of Vijaya Shopping Complex, the commercial concern run by the complainant and the alleged amount was the water charges for the said complex. The bill issued by the opposite party-Water Authority, shows that was charges for the non-domestic purpose. So we are of the view that the complainant was not a consumer considering the commercial purpose. Hence the contentions raised by the complainant are not sustainable. The complaint is to be dismissed. No order as to cost.<br /> Complaint dismissed.<br /> Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/- SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI:<br /> <br /> Sd/- SRI.K. ANIRUDHAN: <br /> Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH:<br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Evidence of the Complainant:<br /> <br /> Ext. A1 - Photocopy of Consumer Bill dated 30-6-2002<br /> Ext. A2 - Photocopy of Revenue Recovery notice dated 23-5-07<br /> <br /> Evidence of the Opposite Parties: NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> // True Copy //<br /> <br /> By Order<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br /> To<br /> Complainant/Opposite parties/SF<br /> <br /> Typed by: Sh/-<br /> Compd by:<br />