29^th day of  November 2014

                                     C.C.214/08  filed on 25/3/08

Complainant:        K.A.Jiji, S/o.Antony,  Kodiyan House, Pudukadu,

                             Thrissur.

                             (By Adv.Geo Francis, Thrissur)

Respondents:        1. Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, rep.

                                 by its Managing Director.

                             2. Asst. Executive Engineer, PH Sub Division,

                                 Irinjalakuda.

                             (By Adv.Bivin Paul, Thrissur)

                             3. The State of Kerala, rep. by District Collector,

                                 Thrissur.

                                                O R D E R

By  Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President:

          The case of complainant is that the complainant is a consumer of respondents vide consumer No.40.  The complainant had paid all the bills issued by respondents  till date.  The water connection stands in the name of Vicar St.Antony’s Forona Church, Pudukad.  The complainant is a  tenant of the church and  thus the  beneficiary of the  connection.  On 18/10/06 the  complainant  received   a notice from 2^nd respondent regarding one time settlement scheme.  It had demanded Rs.23,434/- to be paid  as arrears  of water charges from the period 9/04 to 10/06.  The complainant had given a reply by stating that the charges alleged were  exorbitant and he has not used such quantum of water.  The complainant was not given any details of the bill.  The complainant had paid the amount during the period of  demand.  On 9/3/08 the complainant received another notice for RR stating that as on 14/3/07 the complainant is entitled  to pay Rs.28,362/- as arrears of water charges.  The act of respondents is deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

          2. The averments in the version of respondents in brief are that the said water connection is non domestic connection. It has been in the name of Vicar of St.Antony’s church, Pudukad.  In the said connection charge was remitted  upto  2005 May.  Later no amount paid and became arrears.  Notice was issued to consumer to pay Rs.22,810/-  the arrears upto 2007 March.  On 14/3/07 the connection was disconnected and RR proceedings initiated.  The complainant has no legal bar to approach the Forum against RR proceedings.  The forum has no jurisdiction to try the same.  The complainant is liable to pay the bill amount.  Hence dismiss.

          3. Points for consideration are that :

1) Whether there was any deficiency in service committed by respondents?

2) If so reliefs and costs ?

          4. Evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, Exhibits P1 to P6. 

          5. Points: It is the case of complainant that the complainant received a notice from 2^nd respondent regarding one time settlement scheme and demanded to pay Rs.23,434/- to be paid as  arrears of water charge.  On 9/3/08 the complainant received another notice for RR stating that as on 14/3/07 the complainant is entitled to pay Rs.28,362/- as arrears of water charge.  The respondents filed a detailed version and stated that the  impugned connection is non domestic and stands in the name of Vicar St.Antony’s church, Pudukad.  According to them the water charges paid only  upto 2005 May.  After that no amount paid and the bills amount became arrears.  Notice was given to consumer  demanded to pay Rs.22,810/-, the amount till 2007 March.  But the consumer did not pay any amount and so the connection was disconnected and RR proceedings initiated.  According to respondents the complainant is liable to pay the amount and Forum has no jurisdiction to  try the case against RR proceedings.

          6. The complainant was examined as PW1 and according to him  he does not know whether he is liable to pay additional water charges for excess consumption.  It is also admitted by him that upto 2005 May bills amount paid and later  nothing paid.  It is to be noted that he  has no case that water was not obtained in the said connection or he has not any need of water connection.  So it would show that water was used without payment.  So  he is liable to pay the amounts for the water consumer by him.  As per Exhibit P2 the monthly amount to be remitted was Rs.102/-.  But respondents stated that there was additional consumption and  he should pay the additional bill for excess consumption.  It is also noticed that the connection was disconnected on 14/3/07 and no action taken by complainant to get the reconnection or to pay the bill amount etc.  But only when RR notice was received he approached the Forum to get relief.  He is liable to pay the bills amount issued by respondents.  It is found that no deficiency in service committed by respondents.

          7. 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  29^th  day of  November 2014.

                                                                   Sd/-                                                                                          Padmini Sudheesh, President.

          Sd/-

                                                          Sheena.V.V, Member.

          Sd/-

M.P.Chandrakumar, Member

                             Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits:

Ext.P1Copy of rent deed

Ext.P2 Copy of provisional invoice card

Ext.P3 Copy of notice for one time settlement

Ext.P4 Copy of lr. dt. 20/3/07

Ext.P5 Copy of receipt

Ext.P6 Copy of RR notice

Complainant’s witness :

PW1 – K.A.Jiji

                                                             Id/-

                                                          President