DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of June 2011
Present :Smt.Preetha G Nair, Member
: Smt.Bhanumathi A.K. Member Date of Filing : 15/02/2010
(C.C.No.16/2010)
V.Balachandran
Chairman,
Palakkad Rotary Club East Trust,
Kanjikode West, Palakkad : Complainant
(By Adv.K.Sasidharan)
V/s
Assistant Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
PH Sub Division, Palakkad : Opposite party
(By Adv.K.Raghu)
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER
Complainant is the Chairman of Rotary Club of Palakkad East Trust. The complainant running a working women’s hostel for the poor women employees working in Kanjikode Industrial Area. For the purpose of the hostel complainant applied for water connection from the opposite party as the water connection No.302/N/KJD. Since the Govt. raised water charge in the year 2008 and started issuing huge amount of bill the complainant was forced to dig a bore well in January 2009. But the complainant did not applied for stopping water connection because some time electric motor could not function due to any repair. After starting to use bore well water the complainant is not taking water from the pipe connection and the complainant is paying minimum charges towards connection. On 30/11/2009 when bore well motor stopped, the complainant tried to take water from the pipe connection. Then he found that the water meter is not working. On the same day the complainant filed application to the opposite party. On 3/12/09 the opposite party sent reply stated that remove the meter with the help of licensed plumber. Then the complainant removed the meter and given to inspector of opposite party for testing. The opposite party has issued testing certificate on 11/2/2009 alongwith memo, directed to pay Rs.74,360/- as arrears of water bill. Thereafter they appeared before the Adalath, the dispute not settled. The complainant stated that they are not taking any water from pipe connection from January 2009 onwards. The acts of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party
1) to cancell the meter bill.
2) Rs.10,000/- as compensation
3) Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The consumer No.KJD/302/N is issued to the working women hostel. The inmates in the hostel paid fees. So the water connection is non-domestic category and hostel running in commercial transaction. Hence the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
In the hostel 40 inmates and 10 workers lived. They used excess water in daily. The complainant is used the water connection in non domestic consumer. In 2008 the water charge is increased and the complainant cannot paid the huge amount. At that time the complainant dug a bore well and used the water in the bore well is denied by the opposite party. Admittedly the complainant paid the amount upto June 2008. The complainant has used 2096 KL water from 15/1/2008 to 14/7/2008. At that time the charge of water was Rs.3574/- But the complainant has paid only Rs.1525/ as per the previous slab. Therefore the opposite party has issued Rs.13819/- (12294 + 1525) as the bill amount dated 5/8/08. The complainant has paid only Rs.1525/- Then the opposite party has added the new slab amount of Rs.3574/- and Rs.246/ as 2% interest. Then the total amount is Rs.16,114/- The complainant has paid only Rs.6000/- as part payment. Balance amount is Rs.10114/- On 23/9/08 the usage of water is 444.3 KL and the water charge is Rs.10,500/- On 23/10/2008 the reading is 8166 KL and the water charge is Rs. 10495/- The complainant has paid only in the rate of Rs.6000/- On 17/2/2009 the water reading is 303.2KL. Thereafter the water reading is decreased. On 16/3/2009 the reading is 9354KL, on 22/4/09 the reading is 9372 KL. On 22/5/09 the reading is 9381 KL. On 27/6/2009 the reading is 9394 KL. Then the complainant has paid the water bill amount as per the decreased rates. On 21/8/09 the meter reading is 9395 KL and the opposite party stated that the meter is not working. Prior readings are decreased due to the faulty meter. Then the opposite party has cancelled the prior bills and issued the fresh bill depending upon the percentage of the prior water charges as per the regulations of Water Authority. Then the complainant has to pay Rs.74,364/ as the additional bill amount. The opposite party cannot liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Hence the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
Both parties filed chief affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to A11 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 and B2 series marked on the side of the opposite party. Matter was heard.
Issues to be considered are
1) Whether complainant is a consumer ?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
3) If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant ?
Issue No.I
Opposite party stated that the water connection issued to the complainant on Non domestic category. According to Ext.B1 in the copy of consumer ledger mentioned that consumer No.KJD/302 and category non-domestic. In Ext.A11 the consumer class is Non-domestic, the document was produced by the complainant. In Ext.A9 the provisional invoice card, also the category is non domestic and stated that the arrears of Rs.38,956/- due upto 31/8/2009 is to be remitted 5 installments allowed by Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority. The complainant stated that in the working women’s hostel lived poor women employees working in Kanjikode Industrial Area and the complainant collects small amount from them for the maintenance of the hostel, without any profit. No documentary evidence was produced by the complainant to prove the women’s hostel running without any profit. The complainant has not examined any inmates to prove the free accommodation. Also the opposite party produced Ext.B2 documents marked with subject to proof, shows electricity meter reading in the working women’s hostel. No evidence was produced by the complainant to prove that the hostel was registered trust or institutes without any profit. Under Section 37 of Kerala Water Supply and Sewage Act states :- the Supply of water for domestic purposes under this Act means supply of water for any purpose except the following
(f) for the consumption and use at restaurants, or by inmates of hotels, boarding houses, lodging-cum-boarding houses or residential clubs and for baths used by such inmates.
Hence the working women’s hostel is not come under the domestic purposes. Also the opposite party raised objection to the maintainability of the complaint. So we considered that the complainant has used the water in commercial purposes.
In the above discussions we are of the view that complainant is not a consumer under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection act.
Issue No.II & III
We perused relevant documents on record. The opposite party admitted that complainant has paid the water charges upto 2008 June. The opposite party stated that water charge was increased on 2008 September as per the Govt. Order. Then the water charge of the complainant on 23/9/2008 was Rs.10,500/- for 444.3KL and on 23/10/08 was Rs.10,495/- for 8166 KL. But the complainant paid only Rs.6,000/- Thereafter the meter reading decreased. In Ext.B1 the meter reading on 16/3/2009 – 9354 KL
22/04/2009 - 9372 KL
22/05/2009 - 9381 KL
27/06/2009 - 9394 KL
21/08/2009 - 9395 KL
The opposite party stated that on 21/08/2009 the meter became faulty. Then the opposite party stated that the meter reading decreased and subsequently found that the water meter is not working. As per the law the meter founds not working the average of the six months bill is to be taken. In Ext.B1 the arrears of water bill is Rs.74,364/- on December 2009. No contradictory evidence was produced by the complainant. No evidence was produced by the complainant to prove that the water is not used from the pipe connection.
In the above discussions we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Complainant miserably failed to prove his case. Hence, the complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of June 2011
Sd/-
Smt.Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt.Bhanumathi A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the Complainant
Ext.A1 – Copy of letter sent to Opposite party dtd.30/11/09 by the complainant
Ext.A2 -Reply letter sent by opposite party dated 3/12/09 to the complainant
Ext.A3 – Meter Testing Certificate issued by Opposite party dated 6/1/2010
Ext.A4 – Inspection Certificate issued by opposite party dated 11/12/2009
Ext.A5 – Memo issued by opposite party dt.11/12/09
Ext.A6 – Water Supply Adalath Notice dt.6/1/10 issued by opposite party
Ext.A7 – Revenue Adalath Notice dated 21/1/2010 issued by opposite party.
Ext.A8 – Water meter card of consumer No.302 KJD
Ext.A9 – Provisional Invoice Card of consumer No.302/ KJD/ ND
Ext.A10 – Notice dated 19/5/10 issued to the complainant by the opposite party
Ext.A11 – Consumer Bill of consumer No.KJD/302/N dt.14/5/2010
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite party
Ext.B1 – True Copy of Consumer Ledger of Consumer No.KJD/302 dt.19/6/2010
Ext.B2 – Copy of Electricity meter reading of Consumer No.8351
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 17th day of November 2012
Present :Smt.Preetha G Nair, Member
: Smt.Bhanumathi A.K. Member
: Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of Filing : 15/02/2010
(C.C.No.16/2010)
V.Balachandran
Chairman,
Palakkad Rotary Club East Trust,
Kanjikode West, Palakkad : Complainant
(By Adv.K.Sasidharan)
V/s
Assistant Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
PH Sub Division, Palakkad : Opposite party
(By Adv.K.Raghu)
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER
Complainant is the Chairman of Rotary Club of Palakkad East Trust. The complainant running a working women’s hostel for the poor women employees working in Kanjikode Industrial Area. For the purpose of the hostel complainant applied for water connection from the opposite party as the water connection No.302/N/KJD. Since the Govt. raised water charge in the year 2008 and started issuing huge amount of bill, the complainant was forced to dig a bore well in January 2009. But the complainant did not applied for stopping water connection because some time electric motor could not function due to any repair. After starting to use bore well water the complainant is not taking water from the pipe connection and the complainant is paying minimum charges towards connection. On 30/11/2009 when bore well motor stopped, the complainant tried to take water from the pipe connection. Then he found that the water meter is not working. On the same day the complainant filed application to the opposite party. On 3/12/09 the opposite party sent reply stated that remove the meter with the help of licensed plumber. Then the complainant removed the meter and given to inspector of opposite party for testing. The opposite party has issued testing certificate on 11/2/2009 alongwith memo, directed to pay Rs.74,360/- as arrears of water bill. Thereafter they appeared before the Adalath, the dispute not settled. The complainant stated that they are not taking any water from pipe connection from January 2009 onwards. The acts of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party
1) to cancel the meter bill.
2) Rs.10,000/- as compensation
3) Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The consumer No.KJD/302/N is issued to the working women hostel. The inmates in the hostel paid fees. So the water connection is non-domestic category and hostel running in commercial transaction. Hence the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
In the hostel 40 inmates and 10 workers lived. They used excess water in daily. The complainant is used the water connection in non domestic consumer. In 2008 the water charge is increased and the complainant cannot paid the huge amount. At that time the complainant dug a bore well and used the water in the bore well is denied by the opposite party. Admittedly the complainant paid the amount upto June 2008. The complainant has used 2096 KL water from 15/1/2008 to 14/7/2008. At that time the charge of water was Rs.3574/- But the complainant has paid only Rs.1525/ as per the previous slab. Therefore the opposite party has issued Rs.13819/- (12294 + 1525) as the bill amount dated 5/8/08. The complainant has paid only Rs.1525/- Then the opposite party has added the new slab amount of Rs.3574/- and Rs.246/ as 2% interest. Then the total amount is Rs.16,114/- The complainant has paid only Rs.6000/- as part payment. Balance amount is Rs.10114/- On 23/9/08 the usage of water is 444.3 KL and the water charge is Rs.10,500/- On 23/10/2008 the reading is 8166 KL and the water charge is Rs.10495/- The complainant has paid only in the rate of Rs.6000/- On 17/2/2009 the water reading is 303.2KL. Thereafter the water reading is decreased. On 16/3/2009 the reading is 9354KL, on 22/4/09 the reading is 9372 KL. On 22/5/09 the reading is 9381 KL. On 27/6/2009 the reading is 9394 KL. Then the complainant has paid the water bill amount as per the decreased rates. On 21/8/09 the meter reading is 9395 KL and the opposite party stated that the meter is not working. Prior readings are decreased due to the faulty meter. Then the opposite party has cancelled the prior bills and issued the fresh bill depending upon the percentage of the prior water charges as per the regulations of Water Authority. Then the complainant has to pay Rs.74,364/ as the additional bill amount. The opposite party cannot liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Hence the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
Both parties filed chief affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to A11 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 and B2 series marked on the side of the opposite party.
Matter was heard and complaint dismissed. Thereafter complainant filed appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission and the matter is remitted back for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to adduce further evidence. Complainant produced documents and filed petition for call for the documents from the opposite party. I.A.allowed. Sufficient time given for producing documents to opposite party. But the opposite party has not produced documents and no representation. Thereafter the opposite party produced documents alongwith petition to reopen the evidence. I.A.allowed with cost. Then the complainant’s counsel submitted that the document produced by the opposite party is not the documents mentioned in I.A. Ext.A12 to A18 marked on the side of the complainant. No documents produced on the side of opposite party. Heard from complainant.
Issues to be considered are
1) Whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act ?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
3) If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Issue No.I
We perused relevant documents on record. As per Ext.A14 the copy of letter dated 20/6/95 to Asst.Exe.Engineer mentioned that the hostel ran under the Charitable Trust and giving all exemptions to the electric charges. Ext.A16 is the copy of child development for construction of hostel building for working women with a Day Care Center. According to the complainant the hostel ran under the Rotary Club of Charitable Trust and provides accommodation to working women whose income does not exceed Rs.5,000/- per month mentioned in Ext.A16. Also the complainant produced Ext.A12 to Ext.A18 to show the hostel provides accommodation to working women under the Charitable Trust. No objection raised by the opposite party to marking of Ext.A12 to Ext.A18. Also no contradictory evidence produced by the opposite party. The documents call for by the complainant has not produced by the opposite party. After remanded the complaint by the Hon’ble State Commission no documentary evidence produced by the opposite party to show that the hostel ran for commercial purpose. So we considered that complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the 1st issue answered in favour of the complainant.
Issue No. 2 & 3
The opposite party admitted that complainant has paid the water charges upto June 2008. According to the opposite party the water charge was increased on 2008 September as per the Govt.Order. In Ext.B1 the meter reading mentioned from 1/7/2002 to 21/8/09. On verification we found that the meter readings were increased from 24/8/2004 to 21/8/2009. From 7/2008 the monthly charge was Rs.1525/- On 8/2008 onwards the fine also imposed by the opposite party. Finally on 5/2010 the total amount was Rs.1,41,676/-. In Ext.B2 the meter was working and the meter reading also shows the water given to the Hostel.
The complainant stated that working women’s hostel is running for the poor women employees working in Kanjikkode Industrial Area and they collected small amount from them for the maintenance of the hostel and without any profit. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite party. The complainant has not produced evidence to show that they were not taking water from pipe connection from January 2009 onwards. As per Ext.B2 on 6/1/2009 IR was 7790 and the FR was 9209.
On 05/03/2009 IR was 9209 and the FR was 10003
On 05/05/2009 IR was 10003 and the FR was 10335
On 07/07/2009 IR was 10335 and the FR was 10335
On 05/09/2009 IR was 0 and the FR was 556.
So the period from 05/05/2009 to 05/09/09 the meter was not working. In Ext.B1 page 1 of 4 meter reading on 22/05/2009 was 9381,On 27/06/2009 was 9394, On 21/08/2009 was 9395.
As per Ext.B1 the total amount on 5/2010 was Rs.1,41,676/-. The opposite party has levied fine and excess amount at the time of not working the meter. The complainant stated that they had a bore well in January 2009 and started taking water from the well with the help of electrical motor. No evidence was produced by the complainant to show that they used the borewell and well for water. Also complainant stated that they did not applied for stopping water connection anticipating that some time electric motor could not function due to any repair. In short the complainant used water from the opposite party. But the bill issued by the opposite party with imposing huge amount of fine. Also the opposite party has not produced documents call for by the complainant. According to the complainant, the Working Women’s Hostel running for the poor women employees working in Kanjikkode Industrial Area and the complainant collects small amount from them for the maintenance of the hostel and without any profit. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite party.
In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the result complaint allowed. We direct the opposite party to cancel the bill and issue a fresh bill without interest within 15 days from the date of receipt of order, failing which pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. Also direct the opposite party to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within two months from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 17th day of November 2012
Sd/-
Smt. Seena.H
President
Sd/-
Smt.Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt.Bhanumathi A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the Complainant
Ext.A1 – Copy of letter sent to Opposite party dtd.30/11/09 by the complainant
Ext.A2 -Reply letter sent by opposite party dated 3/12/09 to the complainant
Ext.A3 – Meter Testing Certificate issued by Opposite party dated 6/1/2010
Ext.A4 – Inspection Certificate issued by opposite party dated 11/12/2009
Ext.A5 – Memo issued by opposite party dt.11/12/09
Ext.A6 – Water Supply Adalath Notice dt.6/1/10 issued by opposite party
Ext.A7 – Revenue Adalath Notice dated 21/1/2010 issued by opposite party.
Ext.A8 – Water meter card of consumer No.302 KJD
Ext.A9 – Provisional Invoice Card of consumer No.302/ KJD/ ND
Ext.A10 – Notice dated 19/5/10 issued to the complainant by the opposite party
Ext.A11 – Consumer Bill of consumer No.KJD/302/N dt.14/5/2010
Ext.A12 – Copy of notice dated 17/10/97 issued by opposite party to the
complainant
Ext.A13 – Copy of Kerala Gazette dated 29/1/97 of KSEB
Ext.A14 – Copy of notice issued by Dist.Social Welfare Office, Palakkad dated
20/6/95
Ext.A15 – Copy of Trust Deed of East Rotary Palakkad.
Ext.A16 – Copy of notice dtd.31/8/88 issued by Dept.of Women & Child
Development office, New Delhi
Ext.A17 – Copy of Notice dated 28/5/93 issued by Directorate of Social Welfare
Office, Thiruvananthapuram to the complainant
Ext.A18 – Copy of notice dated 30/4/93 issued by Ministry of Human Resource
Development to the complainant.
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite party
Ext.B1 – True Copy of Consumer Ledger of Consumer No.KJD/302 dt.19/6/2010
Ext.B2 – Copy of Electricity meter reading of Consumer No.8351
Cost
Rs.2,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
