By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The case is that the complainant holds a domestic water connection from the respondents vide consumer No.16561/AYL. He used to pay the water charges. He used the water occasionally as he had a well. The water meter was kept safely in its place and the complainant does not open it or check the reading. The representatives of the 2nd respondent opened it and verified the reading once in a year or once in two years. So no one has told the complainant that the meter is defective or to replace the meter and no notice was given until 6.7.07 regarding any arrears of water charges due from the complainant. When he was not in the house the connection was disconnected without any notice. Following this the 2nd respondent issued a notice dt. 27.7.07 informing him to initiate RR actions if he failed to pay the arrears of Rs.12,290/-. However no details are given in the notice and the complainant is not liable to pay such a huge amount. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The 2nd respondent filed a version stating that the respondent denies that the water connection was disconnected in the absence of the complainant and without informing him. The water connection was availed on 1994. The water was duly supplied to him and bills for the water charges were being issued on the basis of reading taken on time. The complainant has not given any water charges during these periods. It is false that the complainant paid the water charges. Reading was being taken and bills were given to him. More over the complainant was told several times to remit the water charges to avoid disconnection. No complaint has ever been given against charges. The complainant has to pay Rs.12,290/- as arrears of water charges as on 11.7.07. The complainant was given the disconnection advice in Form RA-13 on 21.2.2006. As per the direction from the Chief Engineer, KWA, RR action have to be taken against the default of arrears above Rs.5000/-. The complainant received the disconnection advice on 21.2.2006. Since no amount was remitted the water supply was disconnected after 1½ years. So no deficiency of service has committed by the respondents. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. In a statement filed the 1st respondent has adopted the contention raised in the version filed by the 2nd respondent.
4. The points for consideration are:
(1) Is the complainant liable to pay the amount as per Ext.P1 notice?
(2) Is there any deficiency in service committed by the respondents?
(3) If so reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence adduced are Exts. P1 and P2, Exts. R1 and R2, and the oral testimony by the PW1.
6. Points: The complainant’s case is that he has been paying the water bills issued on the basis of the meter reading. He has no information about the water meter and no one has informed him whether it was defective or not. But on 6.7.07 while he was in the court the supply was disconnected without any notice to him and later he received the Ext. P1 notice and Ext. P2 notice informing about the RR action. The complainant claims that the action in disconnecting the water supply without any notice is illegal and deficiency in service. The respondents denied it. They have stated that the complainant has not paid any water charges since he availed the water connection in 1994 and he has been informed many times to pay the dues and avoid disconnection. But it was in vein. The complainant was given the advice for disconnection on 21.2.06. Since the complainant has not complied with the directions in the notice the supply was disconnected. As per the direction from the Chief Engineer, KWA, RR actions were initiated to recover the dues from the complainant.
7. The complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 and P2 marked. Ext. P1 is the notice dt. 11.7.07 informing him to pay Rs.12,290/- as arrears of water charges. Ext. P2 is the RR notice issued by the Revenue Authorities PW1 has stated that he has remitted the water charges for 1½ years through one Balan.
8. The water connection was availed on 1994 and PW1 has admitted it. At the same time PW1 has admitted that he paid the water charges for merely 1½ years. However no receipt has been produced to prove the remittance. Ext. R1 is the copy of the personal ledger in respect of the complainant. It reveals that an amount of Rs.12,315/- is due from the complainant. Ext. R2 is the copy of the notice dt. 21.2.06. However it is not known whether it has been received by the complainant.
9. The complainant is aware that if the water charges are defaulted it will lead to disconnection and other penal action. The water connection was availed on 1994 and PW1 has stated that he paid the water charges for 1½ years. At the same time even a single receipt has not been produced to prove the remittance. So the action of the respondents is as per the rules to recover the dues. Hence the complaint lacks merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 22nd day of January 2013.
