BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

C.C.No: 494/2013    Filed on 21.11.2013

ORDER DATED: 29.06.2018

Complainant:

(by Adv. R. Rajesh)

Opposite parties:

(by Adv. Issac Samuel)

This C.C having been heard on 17.05.2018, the Forum on 29.06.2018 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. R. SATHI,  MEMBER:

The case of the complainant is that he purchased 3.44 ares (8.5 cents) of property and building therein bearing T.C.No.4/1409 from Smt. R. Geetha Vasanth in the year 1997 as per sale deed no.1715/1997 and 1690/1997 of Pattom SRO.  There was a borewell in the property and it was the sole source of water eventhough the water connection from the opposite parties existed and connection is KDR/6197/N.   No bill was issued to the consumer.  Even after purchase of the property there was no water supply or no proper bill was issued by the opposite parties.  In the year 2004 the said connection was disconnected without any demand of water charges.  The complainant have rented out the building to M/s. Pace Hi-Tech (P) Ltd. and the office of the company is functioning in the building on 24.10.2013 the 2^nd opposite party served a notice to the office staff directing to pay Rs.2,79,627/- towards water charges and also directed that if the said amount is not paid within 15 days the opposite parties will take revenue recovery steps for realising the amount.  The above said notice was addressed to the prior owner of the property i.e. Geetha Vasanth who died on 27.05.2012, the notice was issued after 9 years from the date of disconnection.  The opposite parties did not either issue any notice or bill nor any kind of inspection was done during this year from 1997 and making such a demand is illegal against natural justice.  That the demand made by the opposite party is for the water which was not consumed by this consumer and such act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and having no right to demand such a huge amount towards the water charge.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint to declare the notice issued by the opposite parties dated 21.10.2013 as HC 20/2009 as illegal, null and void; to declare that no water charges is due to the opposite parties from this complainant to award Rs.5,000/- towards the cost and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and to direct the opposite parties not to initiate any proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated 21.10.2013.

The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version jointly.

The opposite parties stated that a water connection having consumer no.KDR/6197/N was given to Smt. Geetha Vasanth on 26.06.1987.  The complainant as a legal heir has not informed or applied for the change of ownership of the water connection.  So the averments with regard to the change of ownership is not known to these opposite parties.  The allegation of no water supply through the pipe line is false and denied.  The water metre of the complainant was in that premises up to 05.01.2004 and was not working properly and water consumption was not recorded by the water metre.  He did not produce any document to show that the complainant is the original owner.  The complainant also not produced any document to show that he submitted any written complaint before the opposite parties that he is not getting water.  The opposite parties issued bills to the complainant as per the consumption mentioned in the PIC card.  The complainant never applied for permanent disconnection of the water from his water connection.  The complainant admitted that a water connection exists on the premises of the complainant at the time of purchase by the complainant in the year 1997.  The complainant failed to approach the opposite parties office at the time of purchase.  If the complainant had approached the opposite parties he would have been aware of the fact of non-payment of the water charges arrears.  The existence of another source of water in the property is not a reason for not remitting the water charge arrears.   The water bills were given to the complainant never remitted any amount.  The complainant did not produce any document to show that he has remitted the water charges.  The water connection of the complainant was disconnected due to the non-payment of water charge arrears on 05.01.2004.  At the time of disconnection the total water charge arrear was Rs.27,659/- and after disconnection the complainant never approached the opposite parties.  The complainant has to remit an amount of Rs.2,90,924/- as water charge arrears up to 27.12.2013 which includes statutory fine of 2% per month.  The complainant had responded only after getting revenue recovery notice.  It is the duty of these opposite parties to recover the water charge arrears from the complainant or from the legal heirs of the complainant or from the occupants of the premises.  The bills were served to the complainant for an average consumption of 20kl per month which is the water consumed by the complainant.  The complainant has approached this Forum to evade form the liability to remit the arrears of water charges.   Hence complaint may be dismissed.

The staff of the complainant’s company filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and produced 2 documents.  The 2^nd opposite party filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination for himself and for 1^st opposite party and marked Ext. D1.

Issues

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

Issue (i)

The complaint is against the bill issued by the opposite parties to one Geetha Vasanth.  The complainant herein filed the complaint to declare the notice issued by opposite parties dated 21.10.2013 as No.HC/20/2009 as illegal, null and void to declare no water charges due to the opposite parties from this complainant along with cost and compensation and to direct the opposite parties not to initiate any proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated 21.10.2013.  The allegation of the complainant is that on 24.10.2013 the 2^nd opposite party served a notice to the office staff of the company directing to pay Rs.2,79,627/- towards water charges and also directed that if the said amount is not paid within 15 days the opposite party will take revenue recovery steps.  The notice was issued to the prior owner Smt. Geetha Vasanth who died on 27.05.2012.  It is stated by the complainant that this notice was the only demand from the year 1997 and no bills were issued or demands were made even after the date of disconnection as alleged by the opposite party in the year 2004.  That the opposite party is not having the right to demand such an amount towards the water charges and that too without making any attempts to realise the amount for a period of more than 16 years.  No notice, bill or any kind of inspection was made by the opposite party during the years from 1997 and making such demand is illegal and against the natural justice.  The complainant is not liable to pay any amount to the opposite party as no water from the opposite party was used by the complainant.

The opposite parties stated that a water connection having consumer no.KDR/6197/N was given to Smt. Geetha Vasanth on 26.06.1987 and the complainant has not informed the Kerala Water Authority or applied for the change of ownership of the connection.  So the opposite parties are not known to this change.  Here arises the question of maintainability, whether the complainant is a consumer or not.  The complainant did not produce any document to show that the property was purchased by him and now he is the sole owner.  Moreover he has no case that he approached the Kerala Water Authority to change the ownership.  The complainant himself admits that the notice was issued in the name of Smt. Geetha Vasanth who died on 27.05.2012.  Hence the question of maintainability was raised, whether the complainant has any locus standi to file this complaint.  On going through statements and evidence the consumer of the the connection KDR/6197/N is Smt. Geetha Vasanth.    She or her legal heir has not come before this Forum challenging the bill.  The complainant also has not produced any document to show that he is the owner and in possession of the property.  Hence complaint is only to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

In the result, complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 29^th day of June, 2018.

SL

C.C.No.494/2013

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS

5. COURT EXHIBITS

                                                                          Sd/-

PRESIDENT