COMPLAINT FILED: 26.11.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 09th JANUARY 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2562/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. Ramesha,<br /> S/o. Late. Muddaiah,<br /> Aged about 60 years,<br /> Residing at No. 12, 8th Cross,<br /> Nandini Typing Institute near,<br /> Hosabadavane, Kamakshipalya,<br /> Bangalore – 79.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Assistant Executive Engineer,<br /> B.W.S.S.B.,<br /> Sub-Division, No.4,<br /> Rajajinagara,<br /> Bangalore – 10. West.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (Gurudev. I. Gachchinamath)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.23,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant is the owner in possession of house No. 12, 8th Cross, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore. He has availed the services of the OP with regard to the cauvery water. OP has installed the meter No. 21616 W2A-302 in the year 1990 itself. Complainant is prompt in making payment of water bills. With all that OP at its whim and fancy used to disconnect water supply on several occasions. Complainant was made to move from pillar to post to get it restored, but still OP raised arbitrary bill to an extent of Rs.9,737/- dated 23.09.2008 without there being actual consumption of water by the complainant. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to recheck the bill and restore the connection, went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP as per the records maintained by their office the meter R.R. No. 21616/W2A-302 belongs to one Satyanarayan resident of House No. 15, Kamakshipalya. Neither there is any privity of contract between the complainant and the OP nor complainant availed the services of the OP as contemplated. The water bills were sent to Satyanarayan only and when the said Satyanarayan became due of certain amount, demand was made, notice was sent. So nowhere the complainant is connected with the said water supply. The complaint allegations are false and frivolous. The complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. It is much contended by the complainant that he is owner in possession of house No. 12, 8th Cross, Kamakshipalya and he got water connection from the OP having R.R. No. 21616 W2A-302. But the documents produced by the complainant himself as well as that of the documents produced by the OP speak to the fact that the water meter R.R. No. 21616 W2A-302 stands in the name of one Satyanarayan. So basically complainant has not established and proved the fact that he has availed the services of the OP towards the supply of the water. There is no privity of contract as such. Under the circumstances we find the defence set out by the OP appears to be reasonable and acceptable. The said meter refers to house No. 15 of Kamakshipalya belonging to one Satyanarayan. What is the relationship between Satyanarayan and this complainant Ramesh is not known.<br /> <br /> 7. Complainant has not produced any other document of title with respect to the so called house owned and possessed by him wherein the disputed meter is installed. The final notice caused by the OP demanding the payment of arrears of amount of Rs.8,819/- dated 02.07.2008 also refers to Satyanarayan. Hence for this reasons prima-facie complainant has failed to establish that OP extended its service in supply of cauvery water to his house through R.R. No. 21616/W2A-302. When that is so, the question of OP having disconnected the water supply, then reconnected it, made exorbitant claim does not arises. Complainant has not filed the affidavit of the Satyanarayan to substantiate his claim if any. <br /> <br /> 8. When we go through the prayer column complainant has claimed Rs.23,000/- as compensation. What is the basis for it is not known. His allegations are because of the carelessness and negligence of OP he has suffered mental agony and financial loss, conveyance charges. No other specific relief is sought either for restoration of the connection with regard to supply of the water or for recall of the demand bill or setting aside the demand bill if it is issued illegally or arbitrarily by the OP. So complainant himself is not very much sure about what is the relief he wants. <br /> <br /> 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we find the complaint appears to be bald and devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence OP is not liable to pay the said compensation. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 09th day of January 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />