BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 29/10/2010

Date of Order : 30/04/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 571/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant submitted an application for water connection with the opposite party. Her seniority No. is 7625. On 09-09-2010, the opposite party issued a bill to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 14,884/- stating that the complainant had misused the potable water for other purposes. The opposite party informed the complainant that the water connection will be granted only when the complainant remits the amount as per the bill. The complainant duly submitted a letter dated 20-09-2010 to the opposite party in reply to the penal bill. but there was no response. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to grant water connection to the complainant, which has not been granted without any reason and explanation. The complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite party :

The water connection bearing consumer No. 23/665/D was given to the husband of the complainant in the building bearing house No. 23/997. The complainant demolished the building in September 2008 and constructed a new building. The water connection to the old building was not disconnected. Subsequently, new building was numbered as 23/997/D. The meter reader noted illegal tapping of water from the water connection. The meter reader tried to disconnect the same. The husband of the complainant obstructed the same and the case filed by the Water Authority before the Palluruthy Police Station was settled between the parties. The complainant has misused the water from the water connection to construct the new building and it is punishable under Section 46 B of the Water Supply and Sewerage Amendment Act 2008. Thus, the disputed bill was issued to the complainant for 22 months at the rate of 20KL at non-domestic rate which comes to Rs. 14,884/-. Subsequently, the water connection was disconnected for non-payment of the arrear amount. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked on her side. The opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on his side. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The only point that comes up for consideration is whether the opposite party is liable to provide fresh water connection to the complainant?

5. According to the complainant, she has remitted all the dues in the old water connection in the name of her deceased husband and applied for the new water connection. However, the opposite party contended that the earlier water connection was disconnected due to non-payment of water charges. It is stated that since the complainant misused the potable water to construct the new house, the complainant is liable to pay the water charge arrears together with fine of Rs. 10,000/- as per Section 46 B of the Water Supply and Sewerage Amendment Act 2008. Admittedly, the water connection was disconnected at the intervention of the police evident from Exts. B1 and B2. Though, the present complainant contends that she has remitted the entire dues in connection with the earlier water connection she has not produced any evidence to substantiate the same. During evidence, the complainant admitted that she has constructed a new building in her property which was gifted to her by her deceased husband. So naturally, the complainant is liable to pay the water charge arrears as per the disputed bill undisputedly used for construction purposes which has not been proven otherwise or to the contrary to the averments of the opposite party. In view of the above, we cannot find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in directing the complainant to remit the water charge arrears and penalty before issuing a fresh water connection. In the above circumstances, this complaint lacks bonafides since unproven and uncontroverted. The complaint is only to be dismissed hence. Ordered accordingly.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of April 2012.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========