O R D E R

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.

Case of the petitioner's is as follows:

The petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party water authority. According to the petitioner he received a notice issued by the first opposite party dtd: 14..6..2006 from his house premises on 15..7..2006. In the said notice the first opposite party inform the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs, 18327/- within 7 days, as the arrears of water charges of petitioner's connection with vide consumer No. 3429/C. In the said notice first opposite party also stated that water connection of the petitioner was disconnected on 6/2005. According to the petitioner never he had such a water connection as stated in the said notice with Consumer No. 3429/C and petitioner never had applied for any water connection as stated above. The petitioner states that he had taken a water connection, with vide Consumer No. 1161 and it was already disconnected on August 1987. The petitioner states that subsequently said connection was reconnected without knowledge of the petitioner in the building of one Chacko Varghese and Lilly Varghese. So, the

-2-

petitioner states that he has responsibility to pay any amount as stated in the notice issued by the first opposite party dtd: 14..6..2006. The petitioner issued a lawyers notice to the first opposite party. On acceptance of the notice first opposite party sent a reply to 8..8..2006 first opposite party threatened that, if the amount as demanded is not remitted , they are forced to take Revenue Recovery Proceedings as per Section 67 of the R.R. Act. The petitioner states that act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service, so, he

prays for a direction of the Forum to restrain the opposite parties from taking any illegal steps against the petitioner. He prays for cancellation of the notice dtd: 14..6..2006 and also he claims compensation in the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party the petitioner is the defaulter in remiting water charges for which he consumed. The opposite party contented that the petitioner C.C Cherian, Cherian College, Changanacherry had non domestic water supply connection as per Consumer No. 3429. The petitioner got water connection after executing the agreement No. 286/85-86/AEE/Chenganacherry on 10^th December, 1983. So, the contention of the petitioner that he has not obtained any water connection having Consumer No. 3429/CE is baseless and false. The water supply connection was given to building No. 266/VIII of Changanacherry Municipality is in non domestic category for conducting business of a laboratory, Changanacherry. Further, water connection with vide consumer No. 1161/C is in the name of Sri. C.C Cherian, Cherian College, Changanacherry and later the ownership of the connection was changed in favour of Chacko Varghese and Lillikutty Varghese with effect from 11..3..2004. Consumer had

-3-

remitted water connection charges for consumer No. 3429/C till 1/96. The opposite party contented that Water Supply Regulation Act empowers the opposite party to take Revenue Recovery proceedings against the defaulted consumer and there is no illegal and negligent act from the Kerala Water Authority and no deficiency in service can be attributed against the opposite party. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

Points for determinations are:

i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party

ii) Relief and costs.

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B4 documents on the side of the opposite parties.

Point No. 1

Accordng to the petitioner he has no water connection with Consumer No. 3429/C. The opposite party produced a copy of the sanction slip issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Authority and said document is marked as Ext. B4. As per Ext. B4 connection was given to the petitioner with vide consumer No. 3429 after executing the agreement with the water authority with agreement No. 286/85-86. The opposite party has also produced attested copy of agreement executed by the petitioner with the opposite party and said document is marked as Ext. B2. From Ext. B2 and B4 it can be inferred that the petitioner is the consumer of the opposite party with vide consumer No. 3429. The petitioner has a defanite case that he had never executed any agreement with the opposite party. The petitioner further argued that there is obvious

-4-

discrepancy in the B2 agreement ie. the year the agreement relates to is 85-86 and the date of agreement is 10-12-1988. So the argument of the petitioner is that Ext. B2 is a forged one. On perusal of Ext. B2 it can be seen that it is on 8..12..2005. Furthermore the signature of the petitioner in his vakalath, Ext. B2 and Ext. B1 application for water supply service connection are similar. So, we are of the opinion that the petitioner contention that he does not have a connection with Consumer No. 3429 and he has not executed Ext. B2 are not sustainable. Moreover, the petitioner stated in his affidavit that petitioner is not the owner and occupier of building No. 266 of Changanacherry municipality and said building was rendered to Mr. P.T Thomas and later the petitioner sold the said room to the P.T Thomas he transferred the room to one Kuncharia and now one Mr. Chacko Varghese and Lillykutty Varghese , were the owner of the building No. 266. So, the opposite party contented that legaly he is not liable for remiting the arrear amount. But we are of the opinion that said contention of the opposite party is not sustainable. Because as per regulation 9 (d) Water Supply Regulation 1991 whenever the owner or occupier desire to have his house connection disconnected permentantly, he shall apply in form No. RA IV to the Assistant Executive Engineer through a licensed plumber along with an application fee of Rs. 15 and disconnection fee of Rs. 50/- Asst. Exe. Engineer shall scrutinise the application and issue sanction for disconnection in form No. RA-7. Here, the petitioner had not complied the legal formalities provided by the water supply regulation Act 1991. So, in legal sense there is no disconnection of water supply of the petitioner so, we are of the opinion that bill issued to the petition is legal. Only course which is open to the petitioner is to remit the demanded amount and

-5-

file appropriate Civil Suit for recovering the amount from the concerned parties. So, we are of the opinion that no deficiency can be attribute against the opposite party for issuance of the bill. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no cost and compensation is ordered.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 19^th .day of November, 2008.