BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 22/08/2010

Date of Order : 31/01/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 469/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant is the proprietor of a provision retail store in building No. 40/2763 since April 2003. The complainant's nephew Sundanda Bai was the erstwhile proprietor till 21-01-2003. She died in 2003. There was a water connection to the building from 1986 with Consumer No. 40/2242 under non-domestic category. The said connection was disconnected at the request of Sunanda Bai as per application dated 05-04-1989. In 1989 itself, it was disconnected. On 06-08-2009, the complainant was served with a bill demanding to pay a sum of Rs. 2,63,164/- as dues towards water charges. The above conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Thus, the complainant is before this Forum to get the impugned bill cancelled and to get a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- from the opposite party and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

2. The version of the opposite party :

The water connection bearing No. 40/2242/N stands in favour of Sunanda Bai, Geetha. R. and Ramachandra Pai. The consumer has not submitted application to disconnect the water connection. Since the connection is alive the consumer was billed upto July 2009 with fixed average consumption of 20 KL per month. The complainant is liable to remit the water charges upto July 2009. The complainant failed to remit the water charges and hence the opposite party disconnected the water connection. The consumer is liable to pay the water charges as per the arrear bill. The opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint.

3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1 to A4 ad B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite party respectively. Commission report was marked as Ext. C1. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the counsel for the opposite party.

4. The points that arose for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the disputed bill?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings from the opposite party?

5. Point No. i. :- According to the complainant, the erstwhile owner and the original consumer of the water connection had submitted Ext. A1 application to get the water connection disconnected. The opposite party disputed the genuineness of Ext. A1. Nothing is on record to show that the complainant or the original consumer had submitted Ext. A1 before the opposite party on 05-04-2009. The opposite party has not brought anything in evidence to show that they have not received any request. Ext. A2 is the impugned water charge arrear bill dated 06-09-2009 issued to the original consumer to the tune of Rs. 2,63,164/-. The opposite party maintains that the consumer neither submitted application to disconnect the water connection nor remitted the water charges till its disconnection on 06-08-2009 for which no evidence has been brought before us, wherein no further inference to the contra can be upheld.

6. Ext. B1 consumer personal ledger and B2 consumer ledger go to show that the opposite party have not recorded the consumption of water by the consumer, this goes in favour of the complainant since unexplained. Ext. C1 commission report would show that the water connection or its remnants are not in existence. It is also to be noted that the opposite party failed to put forth the basis of calculation of Ext. A2 consumer bill. It is evident that the opposite party has also failed to record the periodical consumption of water if any of the consumer if at all. The issuance of the arrear bill in question that too after 2 decades is conspicuous. However, the consumer is also answerable for the non-submission of the application for disconnection, especially because the complainant has also failed to prove any remittance of water charges. Since contributory negligence is evidenced, to set things right we are of the view that the complainant is liable to remit the minimum water charges upto the date of disconnection however without interest.

7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and order as follows :

1. We set aside Ext. A2 bill dated 06-08-2009.

2. The opposite party shall issue a fresh arrear bill to the complainant taking the consumption of the consumer as minimum without its interest from the date of default till 05-04-1989, the date of disconnection.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of January 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 :-

=========