By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President The case of complainant is that the complainant institution is a partnership firm and is working in the building of respondents vide No.21/372 and 21/318. The business going on in the building is Hospital and Nursing College. There is a water connection to building No.21/372 vide No.11590 and to another building the water connection number is 1310. So the complainant is the consumer of respondents. The water connection bearing No.11590 is in the name of managing partner of the institution and the other connection is in the name of manager of the hospital. There are only two water connections. There is no arrears in water charges and also towards the repair charges. But the respondents issued a notice dt. 2.8.05 demanding to pay Rs.1,06,950/- as water charge arrears from 1994 October to 2005 July pending in the water connection No.2870. But the consumer number stated in the notice is 2870 is not the consumer number of complainant. So a notice was sent to the respondents. The consumer number of water connection No.2870 is in the name of one Sankara Menon and this complainant has no relationship with him. The respondents have no right to issue a notice by stating the consumer No.2870. So the notice is illegal and shows deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. 2. The respondents filed counter by stating that the complainant had taken a non-domestic water connection vide No.11590 and another connection to the Albis Hospital vide No.1310. There was a water connection in the name of Sri. Sankara Menon vide No.2870. Before the construction of building for West Fort Hospital till date that connection has not changed and the complainant firm is using the same. There are more than two connections in the name of complainant’s institution. The complainant is liable to pay the water charges pending in the consumer No.2870. There is no deficiency in service. Hence dismiss. 3. The points for consideration are: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) If so, was there any deficiency in service on the part of respondents? (3) Other reliefs and costs. 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P7 and Exts. R1 to R7. No oral evidence adduced by both. 5. The first point to be considered is the maintainability of the complaint before the Forum. The complainant institution is the West Fort Hospital, Thrissur and the Nursing College attached thereto. Even if the respondent did not challenge the maintainability of the complaint as an issue it is to be considered from the nature and circumstances of the case. The complainant hospital is a known hospital in Thrissur and several doctors and other staff are working. It cannot be considered that the partnership firm is running the hospital exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self employment. There is no such averment in the complaint also. The profit making business is going there and a nursing college also attached thereto. Definitely the complainant hospital is not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of Consumer Protection Act. So the complainant is not a consumer and he has no locus standi to file a complaint before the Consumer Forum. 6. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 12th day of August 2010.
| | [HONORABLE Rajani P.S.] Member[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S] Member | | 
