O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner filed on 11..2..2009 is as follows: Petitioner is the consumer of the opposite party water authority with vide consumer No. 523/ MD. Petitioner is regularly paying the water charges issued by the opposite party water authority. According to the petitioner on 12..4..96 there existed a leak from the connection availed to the petitioner. Officials of the opposite party closed the connection on 30..6..97. Petitioner submitted an application to the second opposite party for disconnection. Opposite party issued a demand notice to petitioner for an amount of Rs. 9,705/-. According to the petitioner he remitted the amount up to 19..6..97 on 24..9..2003. Aggrieved petitioner filed an application to the second opposite party challenging the bill. -2- Then the mater was referred to the 3rd opposite party for investigation. 3rd opposite party inspected the premises and submitted a report stating that no connection was existing in the premises. Second opposite party directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 65/- as disconnection fee petitioner remitted the same on 23..1..2004. On 6..11..2007 opposite party issued a bill to the petitioner directing him to pay Rs. 23,231/- with 24 % penal interest till 9/2007. According to the petitioner the said bill is issued without any basis and the act of the opposite party in issuing the disputed bill is a clear deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction to withdraw the bill Dtd: 6..11..2007. Petitioner claims Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party the petitioner had taken water supply to his shop from RWSS to Chirkkadavu, Kanjirappally in Chirakkadavu Panchayath with consumer No. 523 for non domestic purpose. After taking water connection petitioner paid water charges up to 6/97 as per the agreement. Petitioner is liable to remit the minimum water charges of every month. On inspection of the petitioner’s premises by the Asst. Engineer, they detected leakage in supply line. As per agreement if leakage occurred the consumer itself has to rectify it. Opposite party informed the petitioner several times to rectify the leakage but the consumer gave deaf ear to the request. According to the opposite party petitioner has not so far given application for disconnection. The second opposite party directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 65/- -3- for disconnection and the petitioner pay the same on 23..1..2004. According to the opposite party petitioner is liable to pay minimum water charges up to 23..1..2004. Opposite party issued several notices to the petitioner to remit water charges but the petitioner had not turned to remit the water charges. So, finally on 6..11..2007 opposite party issued a notice to the petitioner. Opposite party contented that as per the records petitioner was a consumer only up to 1/04 ie. till the date of disconnection. The disputed bill Dtd: 6..11..2007 is issued on actual consumption of water by the petitioner up to 1/04. According to opposite party bill issued is legal and valid and there is no deficiency in service on their part and 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 document on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1 Admittedly the connection of the petitioner was disconnected on 23..1..2004. So, in our view the petitioner is liable to pay minimum water charges up to the date of disconnection. Petitioner produced the demand notice Dtd: 6..11..2007 said document is marked as Ext. A4. According to the opposite party -4- said demand is for the minimum water charges up to 23..1..2004. Consumption of water and levying of water charges for the consumption are covered by Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply ) Regulation 1991. Hon’ble State Commission in many cases decided that there is no bar of limitation in claiming arrear of water charges due to water authority from the consumer. It is stated that the said liability can be considered as continued liability. Regulation 13 of Kerala Water Authority (Water supply) regulation 1991 stipulate the way in which provisional invoice card to be issued and the mod of assessment. It is also stipulated that meter readings are to be taken at an interval of six months. Based on the average consumption provisional invoice card and additional bills are to be issued to the consumer. In the present case opposite party has not produced any document to prove that they follow the provisions of regulation 13 of Kerala Water Authority 1991. Further more opposite party has not produced any document to prove how the PIC is determined and how they arrived to the calculation that petitioner is liable to pay the amount as per Ext. A4 demand notice. In our view the aforesaid omission on the part of the opposite party would amount to deficiency in service. It is the duty of the opposite party to see that additional / arrear bills if any are to be issued to the petitioner before allowing him to remit the disconnection fee. So, opposite party is not entitled to get any penal charges or penal interest on actual amount due by way arrear of water charges. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. -5- Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed in part. Ext. A4 demand notice dtd: 6..11..2007 for an amount of Rs. 23,231/- is cancelled. . Opposite party is given the liberty to issue fresh arrear bill to the petitioner for the actual consumed water by the petitioner without any penal interest or penal charges. There will be no orders as to cost. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Document for the petitioner Ext. A1: Copy of application for disconnection Dtd: 23..1..2004 Ext. A2: Application Dtd: 21..1..2004 to the opposite party Ext. A3: Copy of receipt Dtd: 23..1..2004 Ext. A4: Copy of demand notice Dtd: 6..11..2007 Documents for the Opposite party Ext. B1: Copy of Consumer personal ledger.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
