Present    : Smt.Seena H, President

               : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member       

               : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member         Date of filing: 09/11/2010

                                                          (C.C.No.144/2010)

Soudha,

W/o.Late K.K.Moideen,

11/666, Hotel Tasty,

Sulthanpet, Palakkad.

(Adv.M.K.Balram)                                           -        Complainant

                                                                   V/s

The Asst.Executive Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

PH Sub Division,

Kalmandapam, Palakkad.                              -        Opposite party

(By Adv.K.Raghu)   

O R D E R

          By  Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

       The complainant is running a hotel by name Hotel Tasty.  She is the proprietor of the hotel which is having a water connection taken from the opposite party as consumer number PKD/1666/N.  The water supply from the opposite party to the hotel is only 3 – 4 hours per day to the maximum and the complainant has been paying  the regular bill till 20/11/2008.  Thereafter the opposite party has not issued any bill to the complainant and hence the complainant could not pay any bill.  On  18/11/09 the opposite party has without issuing any bill or issued any notice mandated by the statute  disconnect the water supply to the hotel.  Then a complaint was preferred by the complainant before the Forum as CC 77/10 stating all the true facts.  The complaint was allowed on 28/9/10.  On account of the order the water connection was restored by the opposite party.  Also the opposite party sent a notice dated 27/10/10 asking the complainant to make a payment of Rs. 57,952/- towards arrears failing which revenue proceedings will be initiated against him.  Then the complainant has enquired with the office of the opposite party and asked for the detailed bill and the consumer ledger copy.  On enquiry it is found that the bill is an absolute mistake made by the opposite party without any basis.  Throughout the bill issued after the renewal of connection from 2006 onwards there had been a consistent bill and suddenly there is a heavy rise to the tune of Rs.13,737/- in the month of November 2008.  And in addition has added up Rs.3,000/- per month as monthly bill.  It is impossible to use such a quantity of water at this ratio as the water connection is only for 3 – 4 hours a day and the pipe is only ¾ inch through which the water comes.  Most of the times it is only air instead of water and the remaining the flow of water is immensely  very slow. The complainant also has a bore well in his hotel for his other activities of hotel like cleaning and washing purpose.  The complainant has used the water from the opposite party only for the purpose of drinking.  When all these matters were intimated to opposite party, he misbehaved with the complainant in such a manner not even  thinking that she is a women and a consumer.  The opposite party was angry since the complainant approached the Forum in CC 77/10 against them.  The complainant is earning her livelihood upon the hotel business.  The complainant is financially incapacitated to pay the amount of Rs.57,972/- towards the bill.  The opposite party failed to issue the water bills for a pretty long period since 20/11/08 and now has sent a faulty bill by way of notice without any basis and also refused to hear the objection from the complainant.  It is highly necessary in the interest of justice to reopen the consumer ledger and verify to determine the correct amount .  The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to

1.    Declare the notice dated 27/10/10 to make payment of Rs.57,952/- as invalid

2.    Reopen the bill account and determine exact bill to be paid with assistance of an expert.

3.    Restrain the opposite party from disconnecting the water connection and referring the matter to initiate  revenue recovery proceeding till the disposal of the proceedings by way of temporary injunction.

4.    Pay the cost of the proceedings

5.    Pay Rs.15,000/- towards the mental shock suffered by the complainant.

Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions.  The water supply to the consumer is 12 to 18 hours a day.  Kerala Water Authority, Palakkad is able to supply water all over Municipality and adjacent areas more efficiently and punctually in comparison with other towns all over Kerala.  Unlike K.S.E.B. Water Authority has no monthly bills.  Consumer are paying the monthly tariff as written on the consumer card for each month and they are at liberty to pay the amount in advance upto 12 months, to which giving a discount of 5%. These facts are known to the complainant as she is a consumer from 22/3/1968 onwards.  The complainant is a regular defaulter of water charges.  Prior to the present water connection she had a water connection as consumer No.PKD/292/ND with Kerala Water Authority and same was disconnected on 3/6/1998 due to non payment of arrears amounting to Rs.70,946/- To realize the amount revenue recovery proceedings  started but later the claim was settled in Revenue Adalath in January 2009 and she paid an amount of Rs.42,500/- in a one time settlement scheme there she was informed of her dues and demanded the payment of dues at the earliest.  As per the water meter reading her monthly consumption has risen to 144.7 KL which amounts to Rs.3010/- per month as  per the prevailing tariff as her connection is in the non domestic category.  As per KWA rules fine to the tune of 2% of the outstanding amount will be added up every month in the case of Non Domestic Category. The allegation regarding the quantum of water per day used by the complainant is absolutely false.  Till date the complainant has not raised any complaint with the opposite party regarding the flow of water exorbitant  monthly tariff or anything about the supply of water.  The disconnection of water connection due to non payment of the amount for the water consumed doesn’t amount to deficiency in service.  The opposite party never met the complainant even once, a person claiming  her Manager came to the office and filed some applications on behalf her.

Complainant and opposite party filed affidavits.  Ext.A1 to A3 marked on the side of the complainant.  Ext.B1 to B4 marked on the side of the opposite party.  The opposite party examined as DW1.  Matter was heard.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant ?

Issue No.I & II

In Ext.A3 the copy of consumer ledger shows that the category is non domestic.  The opposite party stated that as per Kerala Water Authority rules fine to the tune of 2% of the outstanding amount will be added up every month in the case of Non Domestic Category.  In the case of non domestic category the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.  But the complainant argued that  the opposite party has not raised contention that complainant is not a consumer.  We find that complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

In Ext.A1 the complainant filed a complaint before the Forum as CC 77/10 for restoration of the water supply.  The opposite party was exparte in CC 77/10 and the complaint was allowed, on 28/9/10.  As per the order the water connection was restored by the opposite party.  In Ext.A2 the opposite party issued a notice dated 27/10/10 asking the complainant to make a payment of Rs.57,952/- towards arrears.  The complainant stated that the water connection is only for 3 – 4 hours a day.  The opposite party stated that till date the complainant has not raised any complaint regarding the flow of water.  No evidence was produced by the complainant to show that the water connection is only for 3 – 4 hours a day.  No evidence was produced by the complainant to show that she had a bore well in hotel for other activities of hotel like cleaning and washing purpose.  Ext.B1 shows that the complainant had water connection with consumer number PKD/292/ND prior to the present water connection and the same was disconnected on 3/6/98 due to non payment of arrears amounting to Rs.70,946/- In Ext.B1 shows that              1666Â \nehnepÅ IW£³ ]Ww 11/08 hsc AS¨n«p­v. _m¡n XpIbmb 17151 cq] ASbv¡Ww. The complainant has not raised any objection to marking of this document.  In Ext.B4 page 2 shows that the arrears on 01/2009 is Rs.17159/-.  Page 3  shows that the arrears on 11/2010 is Rs.57,952/- The complainant has not produced evidence to show that not used water from the opposite party.    At the time of examination  of opposite party deposed that the amount stated in Ext.A2 is the amount of Rs.13,737/- + interest + monthly charge.  The amount of Rs.13,737/- is the excess / shortfall on 11/2008.  In the version  and affidavit the opposite party stated the complainant is a regular defaulter of water charges and the water connection as consumer no.PKD/292/ND disconnected on 3/6/1998.  The complainant has not denied the disconnection of water connection on 3/6/1998. The opposite party stated that the claim was settled in Revenue Adalath conducted by the Kerala Water Authority in January 2009 and she paid the amount in one time settlement scheme, there she was informed of her dues and demanded the payment of the dues.  The complainant has not produced contradictory evidence. Further the opposite party stated that as per the water meter reading her monthly consumption has risen to  144.7 KL which amounts to Rs.3010/- per month as per the prevailing tariff, as her connection is in the non domestic category.  In Ext.A3, the meter reading on 11/12/2008 is 1057, on 15/4/2009 is 1680, on 1/07/2009 is 2065 and on 26/10/2009 is 2685.  So the monthly consumption has risen to 144.7 KL.  The complainant is running a hotel.    In Ext.B1 also shows the balance amount of Rs.17151/- in consumer No.1666.  But the complainant has not paid the balance amount of Rs.17151/- on the due date. The opposite party stated that as per Kerala Water Authority rules fine to the tune of 2% of the outstanding amount will be added up every month in the case of Non Domestic Category.

In the above discussions we are of the view that the complainant is miserably failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.    In the result the complaint dismissed with a direction to the opposite party to give the complainant 3 months time for payment of the bill amount.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 25^th  day of November 2011

                                                                                  Sd/-

Seena.H

President

                                                                                  Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

                                                                                   Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Order in CC 77/2010 of CDRF, Palakkad (original)   

Ext.A2 – Notice sent by opposite party regarding payment of water charges to

             the complainant dated 27/10/10      

Ext.A3 –  Copy of consumer ledger of consumer No.PKD/1666 dt.1/11/10

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite parties

Ext.B1 – Copy of Adalath details.

Ext.B1 series – Copy of letter sent by opposite party dated 1/11/10 to the

            complainant

Ext.B2 – Copy of letter sent by opposite party dated 30/10/10 to the

            complainant

Ext.B3 – Photocopy of cheque for Rs.4,000/- dated 29/10/10

Ext.B4 – Copy of consumer ledger of consumer No.PKD/1666 dt.4/7/11

Witness examined  on the side of the opposite parties

DW1 – Usha Radhakrishnan

Cost Allowed

No cost allowed.