The case of complainant is as follows. The complainant had a water connection from the respondent vide consumer No.AYL-935. He had sold his property along with the water connection and the matter was intimated to the respondent. He has no arrears in water charges and paid the bills regularly. On 11.4.07 a notice issued by respondent demanding to pay Rs.11,363/-. It was also intimated on 7.2.07 that the respondent is going to disconnect the water supply due to defect of meter. The complainant sold the property in the year 1999 and Ext. P1 bill is illegal. The respondent did not demand to replace the meter. The respondent has no right to initiate Revenue Recovery proceedings. Hence this complaint.

 

            2. The counter is as follows: It is true that there was a water connection vide consumer No.AYL-935 to the complainant’s house. This respondent has no information about the disposal of property. The notices from this respondent’s office were issued to the same address as prevailing at the time of giving water connection and those notices were acknowledged by the complainant. So it is incorrect to say that he had sold the property. The complainant is not a consumer since the property was sold in 1999. It is the duty of the complainant to initiate legal proceedings against the subsequent owner of the property. The Revenue Recovery proceedings are to be initiated against the property of complainant where the water connection was installed. The complainant taken the water connection in 1993 and at the time of taking the reading after four months the consumption of water was 93800 litres.   After that the meter was filled with mud and was not in a position to take the reading. So disorder notice was issued. Since the meter reading was not clear disorder notice was issued again and reminders also. The complainant is liable to pay the amount sought. Hence dismiss the complaint.

 

            3. The points for consideration are:

 

(1)   Is there any deficiency in service?

(2)   If so, reliefs and costs.

 

            4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2.

 

            5. Points: The complaint is filed to get cancellation of Ext. P1 notice. The complainant was a consumer of the respondent vide consumer No.AYL-935. According to him, 8 years before he had sold his property along with water connection. After that on 2007 Ext. P1 notice was issued. So this complaint is filed to set aside the notice. In the counter the respondent stated that they have no information regarding the sale of property and the complainant is liable to pay the notice amount. 

 

            6. Ext. P1 is the notice issued by the respondent in connection with Revenue Recovery action. In the notice there is no mention about the period of charges sought. It is simply stated that there is arrears of Rs.11,363/-. According to the complainant, he had sold the property in 1999. He produced Ext. P2 to show that the disposal of the property was on 31.1.2000. As per Ext. P2 the property of complainant with water connection, meter, security deposit and connected rights sold to the subsequent owner. So the respondent had to take coercive action against the subsequent owner. In the counter respondent stated that they have no information regarding the transfer of property. According to them, in their records the name of consumer is the complainant himself. So they issued notices in the name of complainant. In the complaint it is averred that the matter of sale of property was intimated to the respondent. But no document produced from either side to show that it was intimated to the respondent. So no deficiency in service can be alleged against the respondent. As per Ext. P2, the property was sold on February 2000. In the counter the respondent stated that they were unable to take the meter reading from 1/94due to mud in meter and such other matters. So disorder notices were issued. But there is no document produced by the respondent to show that notices and reminders were issued to the complainant. In the counter the respondent has no case that approximate reading was taken. According to them, no reading was taken from 1/94 due to unclear position of the meter. So there is no way to get the accounts of consumed water also. So we are not in a position to direct the respondent to issue bill for the consumed water. From this itself it is clear that there is no base for Ext. P1. After the disposal of property also the meter was not clear on 7/03 and 7/06. Subsequently on 7.2.07 the supply was disconnected. There is no averment in the counter that the reading was taken. The basis of Ext. P1 not explained by the respondent. We are surprised that on what basis the respondent arrived at Rs.11,363/-. Ext. P1 notice is baseless and illegal. There is admission on the part of respondent that due to mud they were unable to take the reading and on what basis they issued Ext. P1 notice is not explained. There is serious deficiency in service on the part of respondent and the complainant cannot be penalized.

 

 

            7. At the time of argument the Learned Counsel for respondent argued that since the complainant is not a titleholder he has nothing to afraid. But in the circumstances the present titleholder has nothing to afraid, because the Revenue Recovery officers are trying to attach the movables of complainant.  

 

 

            8. In the result, complaint is allowed and Ext. P1 notice stands cancelled and the respondent is restrained from initiating any coercive action on the basis of the same.