IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 93/10 DATED 31.05.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Dr. K.N. Srikantegowda M.D. Consultant Physician, Sri. Raghavendra Specialist Centre, 792/1, Old Mysore Bank Road, Gandhi Square, Mysore-570001.<br /> <br /> (In person)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Superintendent, Vanivilasa Water Supply Works, Yadavagiri, Mysore-570020. <br /> (By Sri. B.G.B, Advocate )<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 20.03.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 05.04.2010<br /> Date of order : 31.05.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 26 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to withdraw the demand notice dated 17.02.2010 and to issue fresh one, restore water supply and to pay Rs.10,000/- compensation as well as Rs.5,000/- cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that, the complainant-consultant physician, for his center obtained water supply connection from the opposite party under consumer number 58031. He was regularly paying the water charges as and when demanded it. About a decade back, the water supply was faulty and never served the purpose for which connection was obtained and the complainant was paying exorbitant water charges even though the supply was faulty. Hence, after making several oral and written representations to the opposite party got the water supply disconnected and took back the matter. Even after taking away the meter and supply was disconnected, the opposite party went on demanding water charges. The complainant received computer print out statement dated 29.10.2009, demanding arrears of Rs.30,425/-. On the representation of the complainant opposite party gave revised statement, for Rs.31,967/- up to January 2010. It is stated that, in this statement as on 27.02.2003 previous reading was shown as zero, where as the meter reading 851200, arrears is shown Rs.30/- and the interest Rs.18.30. Net amount is shown as 11,126/-. Based on the wrong calculation, the opposite party has made demand noted above. Accordingly, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. Opposite party in the version contended that, the complainant availed water supply connection for his clinic, which is for commercial purpose, till August 2004. On the basis of the meter reading bills were issued. Amount was Rs.16,809/-. The complainant did not pay the amount. In the month f February 2003, for 61 months water consumption found at 851200 liters. For that Rs.11,106/- is charged. Earlier reading is shown zero. After September 2004, no charge has been levied. But only monthly service tax and the interest at the rate of 1% is imposed. That fact was intimated to the complainant. The amount shown in the revised statement is correct. The opposite party is ready and willing to give water supply connection to the complainant, if the arrears and necessary reconnection charges are paid. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, the Executive Engineer of the opposite party has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments of the complainant in person and learned advocate for the opposite party and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the point arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 7. Point no. 1:- At the outset, as alleged in the complaint by the complainant, about a decade back, water supply was faulty and ultimately water supply was got disconnected and the meter was taken away. Further, in the 4th paragraph of the complaint, the complainant has stated that, in spite of the disconnection, the opposite party went on demanding the water charges. Hence, even as alleged in the complaint, admittedly, there was disconnection nearly about a decade back and the opposite party was demanding the charges, but the complainant kept quite for all these nearly 10 years.<br /> <br /> 8. Further, even according to the documents produced by the complainant, prior to the year 1998 or at least during the said year, as claimed, he did not draw the water. Firstly, a doubt arises as to whether really the complainant did not draw the water, for the last 12 years and secondly, as noted above, for all these 12 years the complainant kept quite and has approached the Forum in the year 2010 by filing the present complaint.<br /> <br /> 9. The complainant has sought a direction to the opposite party to restore water supply. Firstly, as noted above, according to the complainant, since water supply was faulty, he made oral and written representations to the opposite party and on that basis, supply was disconnected. Secondly, the opposite party has contended that, if the arrears is paid and the complainant apply for restoration or reconnection by paying the necessary charges, it is ready and willing to restore the connection. Under the circumstances, unless and until arrears and reconnection charges are paid and application is submitted, no order as prayed for by the complainant, could be passed by this Forum. Because, it is not the case that, the complainant had applied to the opposite party for restoration or reconnection in accordance with law and in spite of it, the opposite party refused to restore the connection.<br /> <br /> 10. Apart from the above facts on merit, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the ruling reported in 2001 (3) CPR 175, maintainability of the complaint is highly doubtful.<br /> <br /> 11. Accordingly, our finding on the point is in negative.<br /> <br /> 12. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 31st May 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />