DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  12^th day of May, 2023 

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                  :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 02/12/2021    

                         CC/221/2021

Dr.G.Radhakrishnan,

11/431, Puthur, Palakkad – 678 001             -                       Complainant

(Party in Person)

                                                                                                Vs

Asst. Executive Engineer,

Public Health Sub Division,

Kerala Water Authority,

Kalmandapam, Palakkad – 678 001               -                       Opposite party

 (By Adv.R.Gangadharan)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. In view of a major question of law regarding maintainability of this complaint pertaining to the competency of complainant herein to act as a complainant is called into question, only relevant facts and evidence to adjudicate this issue alone are discussed.
2. Complainant claims to be a consumer of the opposite party. He is aggrieved by the issuance of excess bill seeking arrears from him even though he had been remitting amounts on time the opposite party failed to offer any explanation for the claim for arrears.  This complaint is filed seeking return of additional amounts claimed by the opposite party.
3. The opposite party filed version defending their action. They had stated that the complainant is not a consumer and that the consumer number is in the name of one Smt.Rajani, Velloli Line, Puthur. They also stated that bills were issued in  accordence with the tariff applicable. Meter reading could not be availed during the Lockdown period.  The consumption of water during 25/2/2021 to 26/4/2021 was only 6KL per month. Thereafter when reading was taken on 17/8/2021, the meter reading showed 

a consumption of 62 KL per month. It was under these circumstances that an additional bill was issued. Further the water tariff was hiked from 1/4/2021 and complainant was charged in accordance with the increased tariff as applicable. Hence, there is no irregularity whatsoever in the bills issued to the complainant. They sought for dismissal of the complaint.

4. Pleadings in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is a consumer, but a perusal of Ext.A2 shows that the connection is in the name of the complainant’s sister C.Rajani. Further Ext. A1 series also show that C. Rajani is the consumer of the O.P. authority.
5. The relevant sections in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, defines a complainant as follows:

5.“complainant”  means –

(i) a consumer; or

   (vi) in the case of death of a consumer, his  legal heir or legal representative ; or

  (vii) in the case of consumer being a minor, his parent or legal guardian.”

Only a consumer can file a complaint. A perusal of the pleadings show that the complaint is filed by the complainant claiming rights under section 5(i) of the Act.

6. We are of the opinion that the complainant herein cannot claim to be a consumer since the connection is in the name of Smt.Rajani.
7. The complainant had also failed to adduce evidence to prove that he is a beneficiary of the consumer, even after the OP had filed a version stating their objection on the ground of maintainability as the complainant is not a consumer. 

In the facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence adduced, we are unable to automatically reach a conclusion that the complainant is a beneficiary of the services rendered by the opposite party.

8. In view of the conclusion above we dismiss the complaint as the complainant is not a consumer or beneficiary of the services rendered by the opposite party or a complainant as contemplated under the Act.

                  Pronounced in open court on this the 12^th day of May, 2023.    

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                                Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

                                                             Sd/-

   Vidya.A

                       Member        

      Sd/-                                                          Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :

Ext. A1 – Copies of 9 bills and receipts     

Ext. A2 – Copy of communication from complainant to OP   

Ext. A3 –  Copy of communication dated 28/10/2021    

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:   

Ext.B1 – Copy of relevant page of Kerala Gazette pertaining to tariff from 1/4/2021 

Ext.B2 –  Copy of bill bearing No.82313338 dated 11/10/2021

Ext.B3 –  Copy of relevant page of ready   reckoner for water tariff.

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1- Ramani N.S.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: 

DW1 – Abhilash S, witness for OP1.

DW2 – Njanaprabha witness for OP3.

Court Witness: Nil