SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)

            Sri. B. Santhan has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The contentions of the complainant are as follows:-  He had sold the property along with the shop building No.AP VIII/181 to the opposite parties 1 and 2 by sale deed No.528/93 on 16.3.1993.   At the time of the said sale there was no dues by way of water charges to the said building situated in the scheduled property.  But the purchasers have not changed the water connection in their name after the execution of the said sale deed, through the 3^rd opposite party.   But the water charges were remitted in his name up to 2001.   After that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties defaulted payment of water charges.  He got a notice for the remittance of Rs.14,363/- by R.R.  He is not entitled to remit the same.  Hence the complainant seeking relief.

            2.  Notices were issued to the opposite  parties.  Opposite parties   1, 2 & 4 entered appearance before this Forum and filed version.  Considering continuous absence of the 3^rd opposite party, they were set exparte by this Forum on 18.6.08.  But against the final order of this Forum, 3^rd opposite party filed appeal before the Hon’ble CDRC.   The Hon’ble  CDRC vide order dt. 30.7.2009 allowed the appeal with cost and the 3^rd opposite party to file version and adduce evidence.

3.     Earlier in the version filed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, it is stated that they have purchased the property with the scheduled building bearing No.AP VIII/181 – and that at the time of the execution of the sale deed, the complainant had not furnished the details of consumer number and details of arrear amount if any, in respect of the water connection.   The complaint is silent with regard to the period of charges levied by the 3^rd opposite party.  It is further stated that on 14.10.99, the first opposite party had  filed application; before the 3^rd  opposite party requesting to terminate the water connection, since they are not using the connection in the scheduled building; and it was after the remittance of entire dues by water charges up to 10/99 and they have also remitted the disconnection fee of Rs.65/- for the said connection.  The disconnection was effected from 1999 onwards.   It is further stated that the issuance of notice to the complainant was the wrongful act of the 3^rd opposite party and that they are not responsible for the inconvenience if any of the complainant. 

4. Earlier in the statement filed by the 4^th opposite party, it is stated that they have received the RR requisition for the realization for a sum of Rs.14,363/- from the complainant.  It is stated that the first and second opposite parties have not changed the water connection into their names, after the execution of the said sale deed.  So the notice was issued to the complainant.  It is further stated that the matter is pending with the Executive Engineer of the 3^rd opposite party for further verification.   As per the direction of the Hon’ble CDRC in the Appeal, the 3^rd opposite party  has filed version in support of their case.

5.  In the version of the 3^rd opposite party, it is stated that the complainant had taken water connection in his name vide No.AMB/33/ND, usually the water connection was issued to the owner of the building, so the owner is bound to remit the water charges.  The water connection issued to Sri.B.Santhan, M/s. Popular Henco Pharmacy, Ambalappuzha on 1.4.2001 and up to 5/2001, there was no dues.   But after that they have not remitted water charges, in spite of repeated notices issued.   Since there was default, the department disconnected the connection for  water on 22.2.2006 and taken steps to recover the charges.   If the transfer of the schedule building was effected, it should be communicated to the 3^rd opposite party.  But the complainant had not intimated that fact to them.  So the complainant is liable to remit the charges. 

            3.  Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Forum, raised the issues:-

            (1)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            (2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs.

4.  Issues (1) & (2):-  On the side of the complainant, he has field additional proof affidavit and produced documents in evidence – Exts.A1 to A3 marked.  The complainant has been examined as PW1 and cross examined by opposite parties 1 and 2.  3^rd opposite party submitted that they have no oral evidence.  Ext.A1 is the copy of the RR notice dt. 4.12.07 for Rs.14,363/- issued to the complainant.   It is for the period up to 22.2.06.  Ext.A2 is the copy of the sale deed no.528/93 executed on 16.3.93 executed by the complainant in favour of opposite parties 1 and 2.  It  shows that the complainant given possession of the scheduled land together with the building thereon, electrical connection and water connection. The deed shows that the entire assets sold have no charge lien or other encumbrance.  Ext.A3 is the details of assessed amount from 06/2001 to 22.2.2006.   On the side of the 1^st ,  2^nd  and 3^rd opposite parties, they have produced one document in evidence – Ext.B1 marked.   Ext.B1 is the copy of the letter of the first opposite party addressed to the 3^rd opposite party requesting to disconnect the water connection to his shop – Consumer No.333 A.  The letter was written on 14.10.99.  The letter, further shows that the water charges paid up to 10/99 and the 3^rd opposite party was also accepted the disconnection fee of Rs.65/- from the first opposite party. 

5.  On a careful readings of the entire documents in evidence, it can be seen that the Ext.A1 notice issued to the complainant for realization of Rs.14,363/- towards water charges.  The notice is silent with regard  to the period in which the amount is assessed.   It shows that amount is up to 22.2.2006.  The first and second opposite parties have stated that they have remitted charges up to 10/99 (Ext.B1).   After the purchase of the schedule assets by the first and second opposite parties from the complainant, they have not taken any steps with the 3^rd opposite party to change the name of the water connection from their name.   So the assessment, notice issued to the complainant.  At the time of sale of the assets there was no dues in the name of the complainant up to 5/2001.  But later they have not remitted the charges, and failed to intimate the transfer of the assets of the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party.  So the account stands in the name of the complainant.   Then the 3^rd opposite party disconnected the water connection on 22.2.2006 and taken steps to recover the arrear amount.  The complainant is bound to intimate the 3^rd opposite party regarding the transfer of ownership.  If any default for that on the part of the complainant, it cannot be say that there is deficiency in service on the  side of the 3^rd opposite party.  3^rd opposite party is fully entitled to recover the amount stands in the name of the complainant, through the 4^th opposite party.  Since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, complaint is to be dismissed.  The issues are found in favour of the opposite parties.    

In the result, the complainant is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

            Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28^th day of February, 2011.

                                                                                                       Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:

                                                                                                        Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:

                                                                                                Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi:

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-                                                                           

PW1                            -                       V. Santhan (Witness)

Ext.A1                         -                       Copy of the RR notice dt. 4.12.07

Ext.A2                         -                       Copy of the sale deed No.528/93

Ext.A3                         -                       Details of assessed amount from 06/01 to 22.2.06

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

 Ext.B1                         -           Copy of the letter addressed of the 1^st

                                                            opposite party to the 3^rd opposite party

// True Copy //

                                                                                                                    By Order

                                                                                                         Senior Superintendent

To

             Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

Typed by:-pr/-

Compared by:-