Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President
Smt. Sreeja. S., Member
Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member
15th day of December 2022
CC 429/14 filed on 30/07/14
Complainant : C.V. Johnson, Chiriankandath House,
St. Thomas Nagar, Aranattukara, Thrissur.
(By Adv. A.D. Benny, Thrissur)
Opposite Parties : 1) Corporation Engineer, Water supply Wing,
Municipal Corporation Office, Thrissur.
2) Thrissur Corporation, Rep. by Secretary,
Thrissur Corporation, Thrissur.
(OP 1 & 2 By Adv. Soly Joseph, Thrissur)
F I N A L O R D E R
By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :
- The complaint in brief, as averred :
The complaint is filed under Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant statedly made an application dtd. 24/03/98 in the office of the opposite parties to change the tariff of the water connection No. 11423 in his favour, from non-domestic tariff to domestic tariff. The opposite parties allegedly failed to take any action pursuant to the said application of the complainant, but subsequently on 08/12/09 served the complainant with a challan demanding payment of Rs.15,170/-. Another petition statedly made by the complainant before the opposite parties also elicited no result. The opposite parties thereafter issued another challan to the complainant demanding a sum of Rs.22,070/-. The matter that was subsequently considered in the Adalath did not reach any conclusion for the reason that the previous petitions of the complainant were not traced, which was communicated to the complainant by letter dtd. 25/06/14. By the said communication the opposite parties directed the complainant to remit Rs.21,140/-. The complainant states to be willing to remit the charges in domestic tariff and turns the sum of Rs.21,140/- demanded by the opposite parties, illegal and barred by limitation. Hence the complaint. The complainant prays for an order declaring the sum demanded illegal and restraining the opposite parties from disconnecting the supply, apart from other reliefs of compensation and costs.
2) NOTICE :
Having been noticed by the Commission, the opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.
- Version of the Opposite Parties :
The opposite parties aver that the water connection No.11423 in favour of the complainant was not in the non-domestic category and was provided to a commercial building numbered 18/20(1), where an oil mill was functioning. The opposite parties claim that their previous challan demanding Rs.15,170/- from the complainant included arrears of water charges for the period from 07/98 to 12/09 and fine. They also contend that the complainant had not hitherto footed any bill at all with respect to this connection and that the subsequent sum demanded as of 25/06/14 ie Rs.21,140/- constitutes the actual arrears of water charges in respect of the said connection, till that date. The opposite parties affirm their demand legal and tenable. It is also their stance that the water connection in question that is provided to commercial building cannot be converted in to a domestic category one.
- Evidence :
The complainant produced documental evidence that had been marked Ext. P1 to P6, apart from affidavits, depositions and notes of argument. The opposite parties produced documental evidence that had been marked Exts. R1 to R2 apart from version, affidavit and notes of argument.
5) Deliberation of facts and evidence of the case :
The Commission has very scrupulously delved in to facts and evidence of the case. Ext. P1 is notice No.WS2/29342/13 dtd. 25/06/14 issued to the complainant by the 1st opposite party demanding a sum of Rs.21,140/-. Ext. P2 is copy of the challan dtd. 16/06/14 issued to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party demanding a sum of Rs.22,070/-. Ext. P3 is copy of the complainant’s letter dtd. 24/03/1998 addressed into the 2nd opposite party. Ext. P4 is copy of an office note numbered WS229324/13 which mentions that the calculations are done in non-domestic tariff. Ext. P5 is copy of the lawyer notice. Ext. P6 is postal acknowledgement card.
Ext. R1 is 2nd opposite party’s letter of Authorisation numbered G6-23463/14 dtd.25/07/16. Ext. R2 comprises copies of selected pages of the meter reading book.
6) Points of deliberation :
(i) Whether the complainant succeeded in proving the allegations that
he levelled against the opposite parties ?
If yes,
(ii) Whether the act of the opposite parties is tantamount to unfair trade
practice or whether there is any deficiency in service on their part
of the opposite parties ?
(iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation from the
opposite parties ? If so its quantum ?
(iv) Costs ?
7) Point No.(i)
Admittedly, the water connection in question was in the non-domestic tariff from the very beginning itself. The contention of the complainant is that he applied for change in tariff i.e. from non-domestic tariff to domestic tariff by Ext. P3 application, but the opposite parties failed to take action pursuant to Ext. P3 application and hence he terms the opposite parties’ demand of payment illegal. The complainant hardly produced any evidence at all to substantiate his having handed over Ext. P3 application to the opposite parties. In Ext. P3 letter, the complainant states that the connection in question was originally taken in 1991 for the construction purpose of his house and that the construction was completed in 1993 and hence requests for change in tariff. The crux of the complaint is whether the Ext. P3 application is submitted to the opposite party or not. While being meticulously cross examined by the counsel of the opposite parties, the complainant had unambiguously deposed that the water connection in question was taken in favour of an oil mill, which in turn reveals that the connection was provided to a commercial building. This statement of the complainant is contradictory to what is stated by him in his Ext. P3 application and for the very reason it stakes the credibility of Ext. P3 application. The very foundation of Ext. P3 application having thus turned shaky, in our considered view, the edifice of the entire allegations erected by the complainant, miserably collapses. Moreover, the complainant had unequivocally admitted that he had not paid any money at all in this account towards charges of the water he used till date. The complainant is evidently bound to pay to the opposite parties the charges of the water he used. Hence complainant’s contention that the opposite parties’ demand of arrears is barred by limitation, does not hold water. Resultantly, the complainant failed to prove the allegations he levelled against the opposite parties. Needless to say, the other points mentioned above warrant no consideration of the Commission.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. All pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 15th day of December 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S. Ram Mohan R C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. P1 notice No.WS2/29342/13 dtd. 25/06/14 issued to the complainant by the
1st opposite party demanding a sum of Rs.21,140/-.
Ext. P2 copy of the challan dtd. 16/06/14 issued to the complainant by the 2nd
opposite party demanding a sum of Rs.22,070/-.
Ext. P3 copy of the complainant’s letter dtd. 24/03/1998 addressed into the
2nd opposite party.
Ext. P4 copy of an office note numbered WS229324/13 which mentions that the
calculations are done in non-domestic tariff.
Ext. P5 copy of the lawyer notice. Ext. P6 is postal acknowledgement card.
Complainant’s Witness :
PW 1 Johnson
Opposite Parties’ Exhibits :
Ext. R1 2nd opposite party’s letter of Authorisation numbered G6-23463/14
dtd.25/07/16.
Ext. R2 comprises copies of selected pages of the meter reading book.
Id/- Member
