DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Date of Filing: 21/08/2019
CC/213/2019
C T Ramakrishnan,
S/o.Thirumalai Nayudu,
Chemgotta House, Sakthi Nagar,
Chadayankalayi,Kanjikode West,
Palakkad-678 623.
(By Advs .C Nandakumaran & K N Abhijith) - Complainant
Vs
1. The Asst.Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
Kalmandapam sub Division Office, Palakkad.
2. N P Joseph,
No.3, Dayasagar, Ullas Nagar, - Opposite parties
Near Fair Station,Chadayankalayi,
Kanjikode West, Palakkad.
(BY OP1 Adv.R Gangadharan
OP2 Ex parte)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
- The complainant is having a domestic purpose water connection with the following details
Consumer ID =4313132729
Meter No. =06941
Route =6611-1951
Consumer segment = Domestic
As per the meter reading he had consumed 35 units of water for the period from December, 2017 to February 2018, 30 units from 06.02.2018 to 05.04.2018,26 units from 05.04.2018 to 04.06.2018, 34 units from 04.06.18 to 06.08.18. Accordingly Bill amounts of Rs.134/-, Rs.48/-, Rs.208/- were paid during April, June and August 2018 respectively without any delay. The average consumption is below 35 units per day during the above period.
The next bill received by him for the period from 06.08.2018 to 18.10.2018 was for Rs.37555/- showing water consumption of 1011 units. According to the complainant this bill is exorbitant and not based on his actual consumption, as his average consumption has been always below 40 units. As the opposite parties threatened him with disconnection, he has already paid Rs.3000/- in 3 monthly installments towards the demand of Rs.37555/-
The complainant has approached this Commission with the prayer for following reliefs.
1. Ordering the opposite party to cancel the bill issued for Rs.37555/-
2.To refund Rs.3000/- already paid by the complainant against the above bill.
3.Rs.50000/- towards compensation for mental agony and physical strain suffered by
him.
4.Costs and any other reliefs, deemed fit by the Commission.
2. Notices were sent to opposite parties and 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The 2nd opposite party did not enter appearance and hence set ex- parte. 2nd opposite party is an employee working under the 1st opposite party as per the complaint which has been denied the 1st opposite party in their version.
3. As per the version filed by the opposite party the complaint is not maintainable since the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. Their contention is that bills are raised on the basis of meter reading and since, the reading for August to October 2018 could not be taken as the gate was closed and reading for 4 months (from 06.08.18 to 09.12.2018) was taken on 09.12.2018. The meter reading as on 06.08.18 was 2684 and that on 09.12.2018 was 3768 and hence consumption is 1084 units (Kl) for which the bill has been raised for Rs.37,555/-.
They had received a letter from C R Praveen ( one of the consumers as per the bills) on 22.12.18 indicating that there was leakage in the water line and same was rectified by the plumber approved by KWA. This has been confirmed in the letter written by the complainant on 26.10.18, 17.12.18 and 22.12.18. Hence the excess usage might have happened due to leakage in the pipe line. Further the complainant has mentioned that there was nobody in the house for a few days during which the leakage might have happened.
On 26.10.2018 the complainant had come to the office of the 1st opposite party and given a complaint. An official of opposite party inspected the water connection of the complainant and confirmed that the reading was 3749 and that water has been lost due to leakage.
On 17.12.2018 the complainant approached the Executive Engineer and according to his order, leakage benefit of Rs.17014/- was given to the complainant. On 05.01.2019 meter inspector inspected the connection and confirmed that the reading was 3777 kl and that the leakage has been rectified.
The complainant was given leakage benefit as above and balance amount was
permitted to be remitted in installments. Accordingly the complainant has paid
Rs.500/- on 05.01.19 and Rs.500/- on 19.01.19, the balance was paid in 7 monthly
installments.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit on 21.03.2022 and marked Exhibits A1 to A8. Opposite party (1) filed proof affidavit on 03.06.2022 and marked Exhibits B1 to B3 as evidence.
Exhibit B2 marked as evidence is the letter dated 26.10.18 written by C R Praveen &
C R Prasanth (consumers as per the bills) indicating, the leakage detected and
requesting for leakage benefit. Exbit B3 is the letter dated 17.12.2018 signed by the
complainant on behalf of the consumers clearly showing that the house was locked
for a few days during which the leakage might have happened and it was rectified
when the leakage came to his notice.
5. Hence the main issue to be examined here is whether the complaint is maintainable under the Act as the water connection is not in the name of the complainant. Going by the definition of ”Consumer” under the Act a beneficiary is also entitled to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Further the complainant has been remitting the Bill amounts and even one of the letters addressed to the opposite party requesting for leakage benefit is signed by the complainant on behalf of the real consumers which has not been objected to by the opposite party. Hence we hold that complaint is maintainable.
The second issue is whether the bill for the amount of Rs.37555/- raised by the opposite party is due to the mistake of the opposite party, which can be termed as Deficiency in service or Unfair Trade practice. As per the Exhibits B2 & B3 the complainant admits that the house was locked for some period and leakage noticed by him was rectified subsequently. Hence it is quite probable that considerable quantity of water would have been lost by leakage during the period when nobody was there in the house. Further as per the request of the complainant, the opposite party has given the permissible leakage benefit to him as per Rules. The complainant has already paid the total amount due from him and there is no amount outstanding against him. Hence we hold that there is no Deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 3rd day of October, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 –Original Demand & Disconnection Notice and Payment receipts in Feb-April issued by 1st OP
dated 04.04.18.
Ext.A2 – Original Demand & Disconnection Notice and Payment receipts in April-June issued by 1st
OP dated 01.06.18.
Ext.A3 – Original Demand & Disconnection Notice and Payment receipts in June-August issued by 1st
OP dated 01.08.18.
Ext.A4 – Original Demand & Disconnection Notice and Payment receipts in August -October issued
by 1st OP dated 04.10.18.
Ext.A5 - Original Demand & Disconnection Notice and Payment receipts in Oct- Dec issued by 1st OP
dated 04.12.18.
Ext.A6- Payment Receipts dated 04.12.18 issued by 1st OP.
Ext.A7 –Dec-Feb months Notice, Payment receipts date 01.02.2019.
Ext.A8-Notice and Thapal Receipts dated 22.12.18.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 – Consumer No.PSR/3290/D-personal ledger extract.
Ext.B2 – Letter to C R Praveen & C R Prasanth dated 26.10.18
Ext.B3-attested copy to C R Praveen & C R Prasanth dated 17.12.18
Witness examined on the side of the complainant :-Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:-NIL
Cost : NIL.
