A Rajesh, President.
Case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant availed himself of a water connection in 1995. The water connection was granted at the instance of the District Collector since the water in his well had been polluted due to an accident following the fall of a lorry carrying acid to the paddy filed. In 1996 he received a bill for water charges, then did he come to know that it was a paid connection. So he requested the opposite party to disconnect the same . But the opposite party did not take any steps to disconnect the connection. On 04-09-2007 the complainant received a disconnection intimation demanding to pay Rs. 10,572/-. Again on 08-01-2008 the complainant requested the opposite party to disconnect the connection. The facts being so the complainant received the impugned notice under RR proceedings. Thus the complainant is before us seeking a declaration that he is not liable to pay any amount and direction to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings.
2. Version of the opposite party.
The opposite party had granted water connection to the complainant on 22-11-1995 with con. No. KT-102 in furtherance of the agreement dated 14-11-1995. The complainant did not submit application for disconnection as claimed by him. Disconnection notice was issued to the complainant on 19-05-2004, 04-11-2004 and 04-09-2007, since there was no response. The connection was disconnected on 15-11-2007. As a reply to the complainant’s request dated 08-01-2008 the opposite party directed the complainant to remit Rs. 10,572/-. Subsequently there was no response and the opposite party initiated RR proceedings against the complainant. The complainant is liable to pay the amount.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. The opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B6 were marked on his side. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are
i. Whether the complainant is liable to remit the water charges as per the RR notice.
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings.
5. Points i & ii. Admittedly the complainant availed himself of a water connection from the opposite party in 1995. According to the complainant in 1996 he had submitted an application requesting the opposite party to disconnect the water connection. But nothing is on record to prove the above contention. During cross-examination DW1 deposed that they have taken the meter reading finally in April 2003. Thereafter they have issued disconnection notices to the complainant on 19-05-2004 and 04-11-2004 evidenced by Ext. A5. But evidently they have not taken any further action on the above notices. Had the opposite party taken timely further action on the notices the water charges would not have accrued. It is to be noted that the opposite party ought to have taken the meter reading in time where in they failed. Admittedly the opposite party dismantled the water connection only on 13-11-2007 belatedly for no reasons specifically stated.
6. Be that as it may, contributory negligence is there on the part of the parties, so the complainant is liable to remit the minimum water charges till 13-11-2007 the date of disconnection. Admittedly the complainant has remitted a total sum of Rs. 4,646/- with the opposite party.
7. In view of the above the opposite party shall issue a fresh bill to the complainant considering the consumption of potable water as minimum excluding the interest from 22-11-1995 the date of connection till 13-11-2007 the date of disconnection. The opposite party shall adjust the remittances made by the complainant accordingly.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of June 2011
