BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 258/2004 Filed on 22.06.2004<br /> Dated : 16.06.2008<br /> <br /> Complainant:<br /> <br /> K. Sreedharan Nair, T.C 9/1010, B-8, Paniker’s Lane, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram – 10.<br /> <br /> (By adv. Narayan.R)<br /> <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> <br /> 1.Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 2.Assistant Executive Engineer, Palayam Section, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> (By adv. Dileepkhan)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 23.03.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 09.05.2008, the Forum on 16.06.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SRI.G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> The case of the complainant is that complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and having consumer No. VAZ/147/D. The water connection of the complainant’s house stands in the name of his wife Smt. Madhavikkutty Amma now deceased. The complainant has ever been diligent in paying the bills and the meter rent in time. The meter was not working for a long time and complainant called upon the opposite parties to replace the meter. There was no response from the opposite party. Opposite party is the owner of the defective meter. On several occasions complainant approached the opposite party, but opposite party issued a notice on 13.02.2004 to the complainant calling upon him to fix a new meter at his own cost and expenses in the complainant’s house, subject to the satisfaction of the water authority. The complainant was shocked by the receipt of such a notice. He immediately contacted the opposite party and informed that it is the duty of the opposite party to replace or repair the same and the responsibility for the same should not be placed upon the consumers. No action was taken by the opposite party. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party to replace the defective meter in complainant’s house and to give compensation.<br /> Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the Consumer No. VAZ/147/D stands in the name of Madhavikutty Amma and is a domestic connection. The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as he is not a consumer. The complainant has not initiated any steps to transfer the consumer number to his name till date. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant himself submitted that the meter is not working and complainant has not taken any steps for replacing the faulty meter. It is true that opposite parties sent a notice to the consumer directing him to replace the faulty meter after complying the formalities at the consumer’s expenses. This is the law as per the provisions of Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations, 1991. It is not true that the meter rent is collected from the consumer. The consumer may have availed connections from the Wellingdon Water Works, but presently the water is supplied by Kerala Water Authority and it functions according to the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerages Act, 1986 and Regulations there under. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Authority. There is also no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The consumer can purchase a water meter with ISI specifications and produce it at the Authority for testing and test certificate will be issued. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, namely the K.W.A. The complaint is frivolous and vexatious. Hence it is liable to be dismissed with costs. <br /> <br /> The Points that would arise for consideration are:-<br /> (i)Whether the complaint is maintainable?<br /> (ii)Whether there has been unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> (iii)Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> To support the contention in the complaint, the complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked. On the part of opposite parties, 1st opposite party has filed affidavit.<br /> <br /> Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, the water connection to complainant’s house bearing No. VAZ 147/D has been taken in the name of Smt. Madhavikutty Amma, the wife of the complainant. Madhavikutty Amma is no more. Submission by the complainant is that complainant alone is residing in his house. It is submitted by the opposite party that complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as he is not the consumer and complainant has not initiated any steps to transfer the consumer number to his name, till date. Counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that as a beneficiary of the services of the opposite party complainant is a consumer. As per Sec. 2(vi) of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, consumer means any person getting the benefit of any water supply or waste water service from the Authority. Sec. 2 of the Consumer Protection Act gives a meaning to the term consumer. The term consumer covers a person who buys any goods or avails of service for consideration. It also includes buyer or beneficiary of service other than the hirer. In the instant case, complainant claims that complainant is the husband of Smt. Madhavikutty Amma in whose name water supply connection was taken and after her death complainant continues to reside in the same building with the same water meter in it. But no material on record to show that complainant is a consumer or beneficiary of service of opposite parties. In the affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination, it is stated that complainant is aged 90 years and is suffering from various age-related ailments. In the light of the affidavit of an aged husband who is residing in the premise having water connection No. 147/D owned by his wife who is no more, as well as in the interest of natural justice, we find the complainant comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, and the complaint is maintainable. <br /> <br /> Next point to be considered is whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Main thrust of argument advanced by the counsel appearing for the complainant is that the said water meter in his premise was not working for a long time and the complainant called upon the opposite parties to replace the water meter. There was no response from the opposite party. However, on 13.02.2004 the complainant was served with a notice from the opposite parties calling upon him to fix a new meter at his own cost and expenses in the complainant’s house, subject to the satisfaction of the opposite party. Ext. P1 is the copy of the said notice. Ext. P1 is seen addressed to Madhavikutty Amma. Submission by the complainant is that immediately after the receipt of Ext. P1 complainant contacted the opposite parties and informed that it is the duty of the opposite party to replace or repair the same and the responsibility should not be placed upon consumer or the complainant. Further submission is that opposite party has collected rent for the meter which would evidence that the meter belongs to the opposite party and opposite parties are duty bound to repair or replace the same. Narrating all these, complainant sent a letter dated 24.02.2004 to the 2nd opposite party which is marked as Ext. P2 and the reply from opposite party to Ext.P2 is marked as Ext. P3. In Ext. P2, it is stated that the consumer No. VAZ/147/D stands in the name of Madhavikutty Amma and is a domestic connection. The said water meter was not working. So consumer was directed to contact the opposite party's office to effect the replacement of the said meter. Ext. P4 and Ext. P5 are the copy of the bills issued to Sukumaran Nair. The consumer No. in Ext. P6 is VAZ/5201/D. We do not rely on Exts. P4 to P6 since the consumer numbers stated therein is different from those seen in Ext.P1. As per Sec. 42(3) of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, the provision of water meters and the transfer of connection thereto, the use, maintenance and testing of such meters and the expense of installation thereof and their rent and the furnishing of security, if any, in connection therewith shall be regulated by Regulations. Clause 20 of Water Supply Regulations 1991 reads as under:<br /> <br /> “In the case of all types of connection, the meter at the premises shall be provided by the consumer where, however, the meter has already been provided by the Authority, the hire charges for such meters shall be Rs. 10/- per month”. As per clause 20(c) of the Water Supply Regulations, meter shall be procured by the applicant and produced before the Assistant Executive Engineer for inspection and installation at site. As per clause 20(e) of the said Regulations, when a meter provided by the owner occupier of the premises, goes out of order, the same shall, within 30 days of report of the damages by the Assistant Executive Engineer, be repaired or replaced by the owner or occupier of the premises at his own cost. In the instant case, admittedly water meter is not working for a long time and complainant called upon opposite parties to replace meter. But as per Water Supply Regulations, water meter should be replaced by the owner, occupier of the premises at his own cost. On a perusal of Exts. it appears that opposite parties have issued notice to complainant to replace the water meter which was in observance of water Supply Regulations and Kerala Water Supply Act. Hence there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and hence complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as prayed in the complaint which deserves to be dismissed. Considering the age of the complainant, this Forum has taken a lenient view with regard to the interim order dated 02.08.2004 passed by this Forum not to disconnect the water connection with consumer No. VAZ/147/D and the complainant is directed to take necessary steps to get the meter replaced as per Water Supply Regulations within a period of 3 months of this order, failing which the opposite party shall disconnect the above said water connection. <br /> <br /> In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 16th June 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br />