DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 08^th  day of  November,  2021

Present    :  Sri.Vinay Menon.V  President

                  :  Smt.Vidya.A, Member                                                  Date of Filing: 24/05/2017 

     CC/84/2017

Vinod V.P.,

S/o V.P.Chathunny,

Nellichode, Pothundy, Nenmara.,

(By Manoj Ambat, Advocate)                                    -           Complainant

                                                                                      Vs

1.         The Assistant Engineer,

            Kerala Water Authority,

            P.H. Section Office, Nenmara.

2.         State

Represented by the District Collector,

Palakkad.

(O.P.1 by Adv. K.A. Stanley James

  O.P. 2 by Adv. M. Ramesh)                           -           Opposite parties

O R D E R 

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1. Complainant is aggrieved by the allegedly illegal disconnection of water supply to his house, by the 1^st opposite party.  
2. In gist, pleadings in the complaint is that the complainant is a customer of the 1^st opposite party. The connection was availed on 24.02.2011. Monthly amount payable was Rs. 67/- only. There was no meter reading until 2016, even after repeated enquiries to do so. During 2016, a meter reader made a visit and issued a bill for      Rs. 17,556/-. Three more bills for Rs. 4000/- each was issued to him. The bills are not accurate and are  illegal and are barred by limitation. Disconnection was effected on 11.04.2014. The opposite party is not entitled to make demands in 2016 for amount that became due in 2011. Aggrieved thereby, the complaint is filed seeking reconnection of the water connection.
3. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.

Opposite party 1 filed version challenging complaint averments. They contented that the complainant is a consumer under domestic tariff, that the complainant was issued provisional invoice card fixing 15 KL at the rate of Rs. 67/-. The complainant is to pay this amount per mensem and water charge was fixed by taking periodical reading of the meter. As the connection was converted to                Bi-monthly remittance  from 08.12.2016, bills are being issued accordingly. The complainant has till date paid only Rs. 67/- on 07.03.2011. The amount of                Rs. 20,198/- is the amount charged for water consumed for 74 months from March 2011 till April 2017.  The allegation that meter reading was not taken till 2016 is contrary to facts. Meter reading was taken during 2014. The 1^st opposite party further proceeds to illustrate how the amounts impugned were arrived at. The connection was disconnected on 10.04.2017.

Opposite party 2 filed version stating that the 2^nd opposite party is not a necessary party to  the dispute and opposite party 1 is an entirely different statutory body and sought to be absolved. 

4. Pleadings and evidence considered, the following issues arise for consideration

1. Whether the 2^nd opposite party is a necessary party to the dispute?
2. Whether the claim of the 1^st opposite party for arrears of water charge from 2011, made in 2016 is barred by limitation?
3. Whether the 1^st opposite party is entitled to raise the claim for arrears of water bill?

4.         Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party?

5.         Reliefs and cost, if any.

5.         Evidence comprised of Proof affidavits and oral evidences of complainant (PW1) and Assistant Engineer of Kerala Water Authority  (DW1) and  Exhibits A1 to A5 and Exhibits B1 and B2.

     Issue No. 1.

6.         The 2^nd opposite party is the District Collector. The case of the complainant is against Kerala Water Authority who is an entirely different statutory body. There is no pleadings as against any actions taken by the 2^nd opposite party and no relief is sought as against the 2^nd opposite party. Furthermore he has deposed  that he has no claim as against OP2. Hence we hold that the 2^nd opposite party is not a necessary party to this complaint and they are absolved of any liability.

Issue No. 2

7.         The relief sought for by the complainant is to direct 1^st opposite party to reconnect the water connection. No claim is raised insofar as the demand made by the opposite party is concerned. While crossing the complainant states as follows:

            “hm«ÀIW£³ UnkvIWÎv sNbvXp Fsâ GÁhpw henb ]cmXn.    Meter tISmbncpt¶m Ft¶m atÁm DÅ ]cmXn F\n¡nÃ. aoÁÀ doUnwKv ImWn¡p¶p­v. AXv HmSp¶p­v. AXp IdÎv BtWm  F¶pÅ Imcyw F\n¡dnbnÃ. Rm³ 2011emWv IW£³ FSp¯Xv. 7/3/2011emWv Rm³ _n AS¨Xv.” (Page 1 Lines 1-5 and page 2 lines 1-3)  

“Iw¹bnân Bhiys¸« \nhr¯nIÄ AÃmsX thsd  bmsXmcp \nhr¯nbpw Rm³ Bhiy¸Sp¶nÃ.” (Page 2 Lines 6-8)

Hence we feel at this juncture, where the complainant himself has not sought any relief against the bills issued by OP1,  a discussion regarding Limitation of the demand made by the opposite party would only be pedantic and would not serve any actual purpose.

            Issue No. 3

8.         We are of the opinion that the evidence adduced by the complainant is insufficient to prove that the bills issued by the opposite parties are illegal. Furthermore, the statements made by him under oath, and laid down above, undermines the crux of the case. The only conclusion that can be arrived at is he is seeking to have the water connection restored without payment of the charges levied. The complainant has also not come with clean hands as he himself had not effected payments, even under protest for the water he had been consuming.  Hence we find that the billing is proper, in view of the lack of any cogent evidence proving contrary. Hence Issue number 3 is found in favour of the opposite party 1. The 1^st opposite party was entitled to raise the demands for arrears.

            Issue Nos. 4 & 5

9.         In view of the findings in Issue no. 3, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any reliefs sought for. The 1^st opposite party shall provide connection in accordance with the regulations, once the arrears are paid off.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

            Pronounced in the open court on this the 08^th day of November, 2021.

Sd/-

                                                                              Vinay Menon V

                                                 President

 Sd/-

Vidya.A

                    Member      

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –  Original of the Consumer’s Meter Card bearing consumer no. 5405.

Ext.A2 –  Original Receipt bearing no. 1056862 dated 07.03.2011.

Ext.A3 –  Original Demand cum Disconnection notice No.22400797 dated 07.12.2016.

Ext.A4 -  Original Demand cum Disconnection notice No.23081014  dated 03.02.2017.

Ext.A5 -  Original Demand cum Disconnection notice No.25194162 dated 06.04.2017.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

 Ext. B1 –  Certified copy of Consumer details of the Complainant.

 Ext. B2 –  Copy of Agreement for the supply of water.

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

PW1 – V.P. Vinod

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

DW1 – Syamlal R., Asst. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority.

Cost :  Nil.