By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
The complaint filed against the Opposite Party against the excess and incorrect amount demanded to be paid towards the consumption of water.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is an owner of the building which was provided with water connection by the Opposite Party. The building was rented to Nedungady Bank earlier at present Panjab National Bank. The water consumed by the bank during the relevant period and the bill amount were remitted by the tenant. In 2004 the supply of water was disconnected due to the shortage of water supply and the bank was shifted to an another building. The Complainant was given a notice that an Adalath would be conducted on 9.01.2009 to redress the grievances of the consumers of water connection. The information reached the Complainant on 26.02.2009. The Complainant had not availed any supply of water in the year 2004 subsequently the Complainant was given a notice that Rs.31,221/- to be paid by the Complainant in its absence revenue recover proceedings would be initiated to recover the amount from the Complainant. The amount demanded by the Opposite Party alleging consumption of water years back is a deficiency in service. There may be an order to quash the bill amount Rs.31,221/- and the Complainant may be paid the compensation of Rs.25,000/-. The proceedings initiated by the Opposite Party to recover the amount from revenue is also to be restrained.
3. The Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The Complainant availed water connection in consumer No.KM 255/ND. Ever since water connection started in 1995 the Complainant was not a regular payee of the bill amount. The water connection to the Complainant's building was a detached in the year 2004 December. The arrear of the bill amount in total is Rs.31,221/-. The Complainant was offered a chance to present his grievances in the Adalath conducted by the Opposite Party. The allegation of the Complainant that the bank which was functioning in the building was shifted to an another premises due to shortage of water is nothing but a false allegation. The complaint filed is with the intention to detract the Opposite Party from initiating the steps to recover the amount by the revenue recovery. The Complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Hence it is to be dismissed with cost.
4. Points in consideration are:-
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party demanding the bill amount?
Relief and cost.
5. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit of Complainant, Exts.A1, A2, B1 to B14 and X1.
6. The dispute in issue is on the demand of the charges for water supply by the Opposite Party. The Complainant is demanded to make payment of Rs.31,221/- as the arrear amount to be paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party by the bill dated 09.02.2011. The Complainant had been a consumer in No.KM 255/ND for the water supply. During that period the building was occupied by the Nedungady Bank taken on right. According to the Opposite Party the Complainant had to pay bill amount for water charges, service charges penalty and fine for the differed payment as detailed in the bill. Ext.B1 to B13 are the documents produced by the Opposite Party. On perusal of this documents how the amount in dispute reached the calculation of Rs.31,221/- is not seen. The Opposite Parties were directed to produce the copy of the bill issued to the Complainant during the relevant period. The bills produced by the Opposite Parties are obscure and to an extent blank except the amount demanded in arrear during the period. The bills produced by the Opposite Party is not sufficient enough to reach the conclusion that the Opposite Party demanded the disputed amount properly and as per procedure. According to the Complainant the building was rented to Nedungady Bank earlier which in turn became the Panjab National bank. The Complainant was demanded to pay the amount for water connection during that period whereas according to the Complainant the bank which was functioning in the building before the shifting in to other plot in 2004 remitted the water charges. Ext.X1 is the affidavit filed by the Manager of Panjab National Bank according to him there was no terms and conditions in the rent agreement that the water charges would be met by the tenant and they could not produce any documents in that effect. The bill issued to the Complainant landlord was not a detailed one. The reading of the meter, chargeable quantity of water, arrears due and penalty fine and the clauses in the bill are blank. The carbon copy of the bill produced by the Opposite Party said to be given to the Complainant during that period is not having sufficient access to the proper account. Even in the absence of any payment of the bill amount for water connection why did the Opposite Party continue to render the service without disconnecting the supply is also strange. The document produced by the Opposite Party does not give any evidence that how much is the monthly water charges. According to the Complaint the tenant bank shifted from the building in 2004. The bills produced by the Opposite Party does not show any clarification how long the Opposite Party was in use of the water connection. On perusal of the documents and oral testimony we are in the opinion that there is absolutely a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
7. All the bills produced by the Opposite Party demands Rs.7,045/- plus fine for the period commencing from the 2002 to 2004 what was the monthly amount payable by the Complainant is not clear from the documents produced. Any how the demand of the Opposite party for Rs.7,045/- for 3 years can be calculated around Rs. 200/- per month. The amount in notice Ext.A2 demanding the Complainant to remit Rs.31,221/- as the arrear of water charges is unsustainable and is quashed. The Complainant is entitled to remit towards the water charges Rs.4,800/- estimating Rs.200/- as monthly charges for 2 years.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The Complainant's arrears charges for consumption of water fixed as Rs.4,800/-. The Opposite Party is directed to receive Rs.4,800/-(Rupees Four thousand and Eight hundred only) from the Complainant as arrear of the bill amount for water connection. The notice issued to the Complainant demanding arrear of water charges of Rs.31,221/- (Thirty one thousand Two hundred and Twenty one only) is quashed and there is no order as to cost and compensation. The Complainant and Opposite Party are directed to comply this within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 29th December 2011.
Date of filing:04.04.2011
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. P. Abdul Rauf Complainant.
Witness for the Oppoite Party:
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Letter.
A2. Letter dt: 09.02.011.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
B1. Copy of Bill No.524 dt:15.11.2003.
B2. Copy of Bill No.585. dt:18.07.2003.
B3. Copy of Bill No.2007. dt:22.11.2004.
B4. Copy of Notice. dt:07.02.2005.
B5. Copy of Notice.
B6. Copy of Notice.
B7. Copy of Notice.
B8. Copy of Notice. dt:20.12.2006.
B9. Copy of Notice. dt:16.11.2007.
B10. Copy of Notice. dt:24.07.2007.
B11. Copy of Notice.
B12. Copy of Notice.
B13. Copy of Notice. dt:09.02.2011.
B14. Copy of Consumer Personal Ledger (CPL)
X1. Affidavit.
