3DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 28th day of March 2023
Filed on: 06.11.2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C C No. 420/2019
COMPLAINANT
C.R.Thankamani, Consumer No.E 43/1604/Dm “Sruthi”, 43/2713, Ernakulam, SRM Road, Kochi-682 018
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTY
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Water works Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority, Pallimukku, Kochi-682 016.
(op. rep. by Adv.Rekha K.B, Standing Counsel for Kerala Water Authority)
F I N A L O R D E R
V.Ramachandran, Member
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant states that he is a ‘consumer’ of Kerala Water Authority with consumer No.E43/16.04/F/D. On 16.05.2014 KWA vide bill N.825355 raised a bill for 46 KL bi-monthly consumption of Rs.216/- as water charges for a total amount of Rs.10514/- including all arrears (as such copied from the complaint).
The complainant further states that he had paid Rs.10514/- vide cheque No.300110 dated 23.06.2014 of SBI and cleared the dues. On 22.07.2014 Kerala Water authority raised a bill bearing No. 8956611 for Rs.1654/- in which they have charged an amount of Rs.622/- for complainant of 53 KL of water and included Rs.1032/- as additional amount without genuine ground. Further it is alleged by the complainant that Kerala Water authority converted the domestic connection of the complainant to non-domestic connection without giving prior notice and without the consent from the complainant and therefore this complaint is filed. The complainant subsequently stated that he had sent several letters to the opposite party but the opposite party had not responded to the same. Further he had produced copies of some bills issued by the opposite party which pertains to the year 2014 onwards upto September 2019.
2) Notice
Upon notice from this Commission, the opposite party appeared and filed their version.
3) Version of the opposite party
In the version the opposite party stated that the water connection with consumer No.E43/1604/D was given in favour of the complainant on 01.03.1991. Disputed water connection was under Domestic Category till 22.05.2014. In the site inspection, it was found that the domestic water connection was taken into a multi storied building and apart from the family of the complainant there are 3 shop rooms which functions in the building including a tea stall. Since the water connection was given for domestic purpose and when it is used for non-domestic purpose by the complainant, the water connection was converted into non domestic category from 23.05.2014. As per Regulation 16 (b) of Kerala Water Authority (water supply) Regulation 1991, the Assistant Executive Engineer shall convert a domestic connection to a non-domestic connection from such date as he may deem fit for the purpose of collecting water charges when the nature of occupancy of a premise is reported, by an officer duly authorized by him or the authority, to have changed. There is no stipulation in this regulation that prior notice is to be issued before effecting the change of category. On the contrary, it is the duty of Assistant Executive Engineer to convert such water connections immediately on getting report regarding the change of nature.
4) Evidence
The complainant had produced documentary evidences which are marked as Exbt.A1 to A5 (series) Opposite party produced one document which is marked as Exbt.B1. The documents filed by the complainant as Exbt.A1 to A5 are series and copies of bills issued by the Kerala Water Authority. Hence not individually mentioned.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) Point No. (i)
On analysis of overall nature of the complaint with respect of the facts submitted by the complainant and also with respect to the evidences produced by the complainant we have analysed the question of maintainability. The opposite party alleged that the matter is time barred since the cause of action had arisen more than 2 years from the date of filing of the complaint. On examination it is seen that there is a continuous cause of action till 2019 as is evidence from the documents produced by the complainant. Therefore the complaint is not barred by limitation and the complaint is maintainable before this Commission. Hence the point No. (i) is in favour of the complainant.
6) Point No. (ii)
But the complainant had failed to prove that his water connection was used only for domestic purposes and it is not using for any non-domestic purposes as alleged by the opposite party like the domestic water connection was used to a multi-storied building and for other 3 shop rooms including a tea shop. Therefore, point No. (ii) is found against the complainant. The complainant had not even moved the Commission to appoint an advocate Commissioner to conduct an inspection and to establish the facts on the basis of such an inspection report.
The statement of the opposite party, need not have to be disbelieved by the Commission in the absence of any contra evidence and therefore there is no merit in the complaint and therefore the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 28th day of March 2023.
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Assistant R
egistrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A-1: to Exbt.A5 :: copy of series of bills issued by KWA to the complainant
Opposite party’s Evidence
Exbt.B1 :: copy of Water meter reading of the complainant
C.C. No.420/2019
Order dated 28.03.2023
