Present: 1. Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President.
2. Smt.Sheena.V.V., Member.
3. Sri. M.P. Chandrakumar., Member.
17th day of October 2014
C.C.628/08 filed on 18-8-08
Complainant: Thankamma Chacko, Maliyellal (H), Railway station Road, Irinjalakuda, Thrissur.
(By Adv. A.D.Benny, Thrissur)
Respondents: 1. Asst. Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H.
Subdivision, Irinjalakuda.
2. Kerala Water Authority, Rep. by Managing Director,
Jalabhavan, Trivandrum.
(By Advt. Bivin Paul, Thrissur)
O R D E R
By Sri. M.P. Chandrakumar., Member.
The facts of the case is that the consumer was having a water connection No. 521. On 27-9-95, she had sold the land comprising of the water connection to one Sri. Paul, vide sale deed no. 1568 of 1975. On her application dated 20-9-93, the water connection disconnected. However, the petitioner was issued with a notice stating that there ware dues amounting to Rs.1,83,010/- towards the respondent and if not remitted, revenue recovery steps will be initiated to recover the amount. No such amount is pending remittance by the petitioner. The notice also do not contain any meter reading or the details or accounts substantially the pending of the above amount. Moreover, the petitioner has not used so much of water, as alledged. The notice dated 21-8-03 mentions that disconnection of water supply was done on 14-7-03. The facts being so the notice for initiating revenue recovery steps is wrong, illegal and deficiency of service and hence the complaint filed.
2. In the version filed, the respondents have represented that the domestic water connection no. 521 on the name of the petitioner, have been converted into non-domestic connection with effect from 1/7/88, since it was found that water was being used for non domestic purposes. The consumer had remitted the bill amounts till 7/88. But, after this, she has not remitted any amount. However, since the meter was found, not functioning at the time of inspection during March 1989, the bill amount was computed, based on the average consumption of the last few months as 30Kls monthly. Thus, adding Rs.3 as fine the bimonthly amount was calculated as Rs.63/- which was remitted by the consumer. During the subsequent months, considering the non-working of the meter, the amount was revised to Rs.93/- per month from 10/91 to 10/92; Rs.124/- from 6/93, Rs.143/- from 6/94 and Rs.230/- from 4/99. According the petitioner was given a notice on 29/5/03 to remit Rs.24,859/-, failing which supply will be disconnected. However, the petitioner failed to remit the amount and hence, on 14-7-03, the connection was disconnected. Even then, the petitioner did not remit the amount. And hence, during 5/08, notice was given against initiating revenue recovery steps. The dues from 8/88to 7/03 was Rs.24568/- and the total dues is worked out to be Rs.1,83,010/-, at compound interest. The respondent further represents that if even there is change of ownership, it is the responsibly of the complainant to inform the fact to this office. However, this has not been done timely. The action, taken by the respondent is only as per rules and there is no deficiency of service. The complaint be therefore dismissed.
- The points for consideration are :
- Is there any unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents?
- If so, compensation and costs.
- Evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P3 and R1 marked. No oral evidence adduced by the respondents.
5. The complaint has been filed, requesting to cancel the notice for Rs.1,83,010/- (Ext. P2) and also to restrain the revenue recover proceedings against the petitioner, since there is no dues to the respondent, pending remittance. The respondent argues that the dues are calculated as per rules and since the petitioner has not yet remitted the dues, even after sufficiency notices, revenue recovery steps are being initiated. The complaint may therefore be dismissed.
6. In the argument notes filed, the respondent argues that no water charges haven been paid by the petitioner, changes have been paid by the petitioner, since July 1988, even though meter readings were taken and bills issued in time. Also, the details of sale of property have not been informed to the respondents in time, even though it was their responsibility to inform the same, timely. Hence the consumer cannot escape from the liabilities. Moreover, the provisions of the limitation Act 1963, cannot be made applicable in this case, since as per Article 7.2 of RR ad. 1968, the prayer to restrain Forum Revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner will not sustain. Moreover, Article 112 of Limitation Act, provides a period of 30years as the period of limitation for filing suit to recover the amounts due to Government. As such, the petitioner has no right of relief
7. The Forum has gone through all records of the case, the arguments and depositions and also the exhibits P1-P3 and R1 produced and may offer the following observations.
(a) The main contentions contained in the complainant are that there are no details as to how the amount has been arrived at, no dues pending remittance; and that she has not used so much of water. Considering the above contentions, the Forum has gone through Exhibit P1, the notice regarding the initiation of revenue recovery steps and Ext. P2, the another notice in the matter dated 3-6-08. It is seen that both the notices contain no details of the amounts or meter reading. The Forum is of opinion that notices given to consumers should be self explanatory, for will all detail, for common public to understand, a glance. However, since the notice is not so, the argument of the complaint, on this aspect stands true.
(b) The petitioner has, in his complaint, argued that he had no dues to remit. As such, it was the responsibility of the respondent, to produce copies of the bills issued from July 1988 onwards, till the last bill, as a proof, which led the respondents to take action to move to disconnection, revenue recovery steps, etc. However, these documents have not been produced.
(c) Exhibit R1, produced by the respondent, contains four sheets being the Photostat copy of the personal ledger of the consumer. The 1str of the four sheets has details only form 10/91, where as the respondent claims non-remittance from July 1988. The respondent has thus failed to prove the outstanding dues of the petitioner.
(d) As per the 4th sheet of Exhibit, an abstract of the bill is seen worked out, as per, out of Rs.1,83,010/-, Rs.1,57,807/- is recorded as the fine from 4/99 to 5/08. The details as to how the amount has been worked out, is not explained either in the Exhibit R1 nor in the version or argument, note filed.
(e) Disparities/variations are seen in the details as per the version filed, the argument notes and the consumer personal ledger.
(i) As per the true copy of Exhibit R1 -3rd sheet, the consumer has remitted amounts up to 6/93. However in the version filed, the last date of remittance is mentioned as 3/1989 whereas, as per the argument notes, the last date of remittance is mentioned as July 1988.
(ii) As per paragraph 7 of the version filed, it is explained that the monthly rage levied is Rs.93/- from 10/91 to 10/92; Rs.124/- from 6/93, Rs.143/- from 6/94 and Rs.30/- from 4/99. However as per sheet of R1, the water charge is seen worked out at Rs.93/- monthly from 8/93 to 6/94, Rs.145/- from 7/94 to 3/99.
(f) As per the version filed, the meter is not working from March 1989. The non functions of the meter are seen recorded in Exhibit R1 also. However, the steps taken to replace the same have not been explained by the respondents.
8. Considering all the above, the Forum is compelled to believe in the arguments put forth by the petitioner, regarding the disputed notice, Exhibit P2.
7. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the Exhibit P2 notice stands cancelled. No orders as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 17th day of October 2014.
M.P.Chandrakumar, Member
Padmini Sudheesh, President.
Sheena.V.V, Member.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits:
Ext. P1 – copy of notice dated 21/8/2003
Ext. P2 – copy of notice dated 3/6/08
Ext. P3 – copy of reply notice.
Complainant’s witness :
PW1 – Kurian Joseph
Respondents Exhibits :
Ext. R1 – copy of personal ledger sheets
Member
