<br /> By ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed this complaint to get the bill amount Rs.5,15,084/-and Rs. 5,000/- as cost.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> <br /> The complainant is the proprietor of Amma Family Restaurant sitated in the ground floor of the Punalur Municipal Shopping Complex.. 1st opp.party party is owned and managed the said shopping complex.The complainant took a portion of the ground floor of the said building from 1st opp.party on lease for conducting a small restaurant as per the renewed lease agreement dt. 19.7.2003. There is a common water connection in the name of 1st opp.party for the entire seven storied building which is used by the offices and other establishments functioning in the Municipal Complex. The water charges are paid by the 1st opp.party from the very beginning. Complainant is running the above said restaurant hotel from 1986 onwards. Since then the opp.parties did lnot demand any amount from the complainant as water charges It is also submitted that the complainant cannot fully depend upon the 2nd and 3rd opp.party’s for his water requirement since they are not supply water uninterruptedly. Now the 1st opp.party to surprise of this complaint demanded that water bill amounts Rs.5,15,084/- is in arrears of water charges to be paid by this complainant alone. The 1st opp.party also quoted the demand notice issued by the 2nd and 3rd opp.parties There is no separate water connection or water meter in the name of this complainant The complainant is paying Rs.10,512 licence charge to the 1st opp.party. It is also pertinent to note that the 2nd and 3rd opp.parties cannot claim water charges pertaining to a period covering more than six months. This demand for water charges for the period from 1986 onwards is illegal The restaurant run by the complainant is the only his livelihood and disconnection of water facilities to the building will disrupt the functioning of the restaurant which will cause irreparable loss and damages to the complainant. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> 1st opp.party filed a version contending, interalia, that the allegations and claimed that on the agreement there is a clause that the lessee shall install separate water meter and pay the water charges. They repeatedly given notice to the complainant to comply the same employees of water authority inspected each establishments and given direction to pay different amounts to each establishment as water charge. Complainant disputed the said amount so water authority conducted enquiry and reduce the amount to Rs. 2,99,919/-. The matter in OP No.31/2004 is same and that was dismissed earlier. 1st opp.party received a notice from water authority to pay the arrears of water charges and complainant is liable to pay the same. Hence the 1st opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> The 2nd and 3rd opp.parties filed a joined version contending interalis, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer of the 2nd and 3rd opp.party The allegations in para 1 and are false and hence denied. The 1st opp.party is the owner in possession of the alleged Municipal building. On 14.4.1989 two water connection were provided by the 2nd opp.party to the 1st opp.party as ND 932 and ND 933 under non domestic category in the alleged Municipal Building. On 24.6.1998the water meter ND 932 had become faulty and hence the 2nd opp.party had served several notices to the 1st opp.party directing to remove the faulty meter with a news one free from any defect to measure the actual consumption of the water. The 1st opp.party had also failed to pay the water charges as agreed and hence several demand cum disconnection notices were served by the 2nd opp.party to the 1st opp.party. Hon’ble Minister for Irrigation granted the instalment prayer and the 1st opp.party had paid an <br /> amount of Rs.67,269/- ie, covered under the instalment Nos. 1 to 3 from 3/2001 to 6/2001. Thereafter the 1st opp.party failed to pay the remaining instalments. The 1st opp.party had also defaulted to pay the water charges from 3/2001, several demand notices were served to the 1st opp.party. But the 1st opp.party failed to remit the water charges. The 1st opp.party inspected the premises and water connections and assessed the water charge on the basis of the actual water consumption. The 1st opp.party is bound to pay the water charges to the 2nd and 3rd opp.parties The 1st opp.party committed gross negligence to pay the water charges from 1998 and penal actions were started by the 2nd opp.party from 2000 onwards. The 2nd opp.party had already directed the 1st opp.party to make arrangements for providing separate water meter for each room in the storied building. The alleged water connection was provided by the 2nd and 3rd opp.party to the 1st opp.party for its business purpose. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd and 3rd opp.parties. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint.]<br /> <br /> Points <br /> <br /> The complainant’s case is that he took a portion of the ground floor and lodge portion of building from the 1st opp.party on lease. The complainant is running the said restaurant and lodge from 1986 onwards. Through Ext.P3 1st opp.party demanded Rs.5,15,084/- in arrears of water charges to be remitted by the complainant. The demand of the 1st opp.party is illegal and unreasonable and prays for quashing the said bill and also wants to declare that the complainant is not liable to pay the same.<br /> <br /> According to 1st opp.party on the basis of Ext.P1 the complainant shall install separate water meter and pay the water charges. 1st opp.party repeatedly given notice to the complainant the same. Hence the complainant liable to pay the said arrears of water charge and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> According to 2nd and 3rd opp.parties, the complainant is not a consumer of them. There is no privity of contending between the complainant and the 2nd and 3rd opp.parties and as such there is no deficiency of service.<br /> <br /> Here the question to be decided is whether the opp.parties have committed any deficiency in service to the complainant with relates to 1st opp.party. There is an agreement between the complainant and 1st opp.party for taking the building on lease “ As per condition No.2 the complainant is argued to pay all taxes and charges which includes water charges also. On the basis of Ext.P1 agreement, the 1st opp.party has issued Ext.P3 letter to the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on this part. As per Ext.P1 it is the duty of the complainant to apply for the installation of a separate water meter for assessing his water charges. The complainant is bound to pay his water charges.<br /> <br /> As against opp.parties 2 and 3 they filed version but did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove their version. On perusal of Ext.P2 it is seen that it is issued by the 2nd opp.party to the 1st opp.party with regard to Ext.P2, the complainant is a third party. He is not a consumer of opp.party 2 and 3. There is no privity of contract between the complainant opp.parties 2 and 3. Hence the Forum is not able to entertain the prayer of the complainant to quash the bill issued for Rs.5,15,084/- by the 2nd opp.party.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint fails and is dismissed without costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I n de x<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. – Vijayanathan Pillai<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Argument dt. 19.7.2003.<br /> P2. – Disconnection Advise<br /> P3. – Notice dated 19.11.2003<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the Opp.parties<br /> DW.1. – M. Rajendran Nair<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />