BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 112/2004 Filed on 08.03.2004 Dated : 30.06.2010 Complainant: N. Sukumaran Nair, residing at Janaki Villa, Palace Road, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. M.R. Anandakuttan) Opposite parties:
The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Sub Division, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Santhamma Thomas & P. Dileepkhan)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 15.06.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.04.2010, the Forum on 30.06.2010 delivered the following: ORDER SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant was running a printing press in the name and style 'K.V. Press' at Attingal in his own building and he availed water connection to the said building from the opposite parties vide consumer No. 2916, that on 22.02.1995 he alienated the said property with building therein in favour of one Vairaven Chettiar by executing a sale deed and thereby the vendee has been remitting land and building tax from 1995 onwards, that complainant had settled all the water charge bills upto the date of the sale deed and entrusted all the papers with respect to the above said water connection to the said vendee, that complainant also intimated the 2nd opposite party all these things and submitted an application to cancel the water connection in his name, that on 28.08.2002 opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 1,00,177/- being the water arrears for the period from March 1999 to March 2002, that complainant approached the office of the 2nd opposite party and submitted an application to discharge the complainant from the liabilities stated in the impugned bill. Opposite party assured the complainant that he need not pay any amount as demanded in the impugned bill and agreed to change the name of the consumer number to the present owner of the building. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to set aside the demand notice dated 23.02.2004, to change the name o the water supply connection to the present owner of the building and to pay compensation along with costs of the proceedings.
Opposite parties filed version contending that non-domestic connection was given to Sri. Sukumaran Nair, K.V. Press, Attingal vide consumer No. 2916 in 1989. From 1989 onwards till date the complainant has not paid his dues to the KWA, that if the ownership of the premises had changed, complainant should have brought the matter to the notice of the opposite parties and should have submitted an application in proper form for effecting the change in the consumer register, that complainant was obliged to clear his outstanding dues till the change of the consumer. Opposite party denies the receipt of the application dated 14.01.2003 since till the connection stands in the name of the complainant. Complainant is legally bound to remit the dues. Complainant has not produced any document showing the payment of water charges nor has complainant taken any steps to change the ownership of the consumer number. Complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Complainant is trying to evade the proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act by filing this complaint. No cause of action is alleged in the complaint. Hence opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs. The points that arise for consideration are:- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the demand notice dated 23.02.2004 cancelled? Whether the complainant is entitled to effect the change of ownership of water connection No. 2916 to Mr. Vairavan from 1995 onwards? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P4. In rebuttal 2nd opposite party has filed affidavit. Opposite parties have not furnished any documents. Points (i) to (iv) :- Admittedly, the complainant was running a printing press under the name and style “K.V. Press” at Attingal in his own building bearing No. AMC XII/Sy/494 and he availed water connection in the said building from the opposite parties vide consumer No. 2916. It has been the case of the complainant that on 22.02.1995 he alienated the property along with the above said building in favour of Mr. Vairavan Chettiar by executing a sale deed and thereby the vendee has been remitting land building tax in his name from 1995 onwards. It has also been the case of the complainant that he had settled all the water charge bills upto the date of the sale deed, i.e; 22.02.1995 and entrusted all the papers with respect to the above said water connection including the water consumer card to the said Vairavan and submitted an application to 2nd opposite party to cancel the said water connection in his name. It has also been the case of the complainant that opposite party issued a bill dated 28.08.2002 to him for an amount of Rs. 1,00,177/- being water charge arrears upto 03/02, that immediately on receipt of the same, he approached the 2nd opposite party and revealed all the above said things with necessary documents and 2nd opposite party asked him to submit an application stating all these things in order to discharge him from the liabilities, and that accordingly, complainant submitted application on 14.01.2003 to 2nd opposite party. Further, instead of being discharged him from all the liabilities, 2nd opposite party issued a demand notice dated 23.02.2004 for an amount of Rs. 1,56,157/- to the complainant demanding him to remit the same on or before 15.01.2004, failing which it will be recommended to the District Collector for Revenue Recovery. Ext. P1 is the copy of the bill dated 28.08.2002. On a perusal of the Ext. P1 it is seen that Consumer No. is 2916, meter reading is not recorded and connection category is not mentioned, that as regards the details of amount to be remitted, it is recorded that opening balance upto 03/99 as Rs. 33,692/-, water charges from 04/99 to 03/02 as Rs. 21,348/- and surcharge from 04/99 to 03/02 as 45137. Ext. P2 is the copy of the letter from the complainant to 2nd opposite party stating all the details regarding the said connection. Ext. P3 is the copy of the notice dated 23.02.2004 addressed to the complainant from the office of the 2nd opposite party requesting him to remit an amount of Rs. 1,56,157/- before 15.01.2004. It is pertinent to point out that as per Ext. P3, complainant was requested to remit the said amount before 15.01.2004 whereas, the notice was dated on 23.02.2004, thereby the urgency of the opposite party to realise the said amount is revealed. Ext. P4 is the attested copy of the sale deed No. 512/95 dated 22.02.1995 executed by the complainant in favour of Vairavan Chettiar. According to opposite parties complainant never brought to the notice of the opposite party about the alienation of property in favour of Vairavan Chettiar, nor he submitted an application in the proper form for effecting the change in the consumer register, that as per records, complainant is the consumer and bills were issued to him and he is bound to clear the dues. It is contended by the opposite parties that complainant has not paid a single paise to the KWA as water charges from the date of connection till date, nor has he submitted an application to the KWA to cancel the said connection. It is the say of the opposite parties that complainant was issued bills regularly but he has not cared to remit the water due as per the provisional invoice card rate even from the inception. Though complainant submitted that he has settled all the water charge bills upto 22.02.1995, he has not produced any receipt showing the remittance of water charges, nor has he furnished the copy of the provisional invoice card to peruse the monthly amount to be remitted and arrear amount if any to be recorded therein. Opposite parties also have not produced the meter reading register and copies of bills if any issued to complainant. It is to be pointed out that had opposite parties issued bills/notice if any to the complainant on due dates, opposite parties could initiate action against the consumer accordingly as per the Regulations. No action was taken by opposite parties prior to issue of Ext. P1 bill dated 28.08.2002. Neither the complainant nor the opposite parties has adduced evidence in support of their contentions. Evidently, by Ext. P4, on 22.02.1995, complainant had executed a sale deed with respect to the said building having the said water connection to one Vairavan Chettiar, who is not made a party in the complaint. Neither the complainant nor the opposite party has approached this Forum to implead the vendee as a party in the complaint, nor either the complainant or opposite party has summoned the vendee to disclose the facts in dispute. It is surprised to see the statement of the opposite parties in their version that complainant has not paid a single paise to the KWA as water charges from the date of connection till date. Had opposite parties, the statutory authority, acted as per the Regulations stipulated, this type of incidents could have avoided. Opposite parties failed to do so. In the absence of evidence in support of the contention of either parties we are not in a position to allow or disallow the complaint. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if 2nd opposite party is directed to inspect the connection site and ascertain whether the building in dispute has been in the absolute ownership and possession of the vendee as alleged in the complaint, if that being so, complainant must be absolved from liability to pay water charges from 02/95 onwards, while complainant should pay minimum water charge upto 02/95, if in the negative, complainant should pay minimum water charge till the date of notice issued by opposite parties. In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The notice dated 23.02.2004 issued by opposite party is cancelled. Opposite party shall raise fresh bill on the basis of minimum monthly water consumption as per provisional invoice card upto 02/95 without inclusion of surcharge, if, on inspection by 2nd opposite party finds the ownership and possession of the building having consumer No. 2916 is not in the name of the complainant as per Ext. P4 sale deed. If on inspection by 2nd opposite party finds the said building having consumer No. 2916 is still in the possession of the complainant, opposite party shall collect minimum water charge from the complainant till the date of notice dated 23.02.2004. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstance of the case. Parties shall bear and suffer their costs. 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 30th day of June 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD, President.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
O.P. No. 112/2004 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : NIL II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Copy of the bill dated 28.08.2002. P2 - Copy of the letter from the complainant to 2nd opposite party. P3 - Copy of notice dated 23.02.2004 addressed to complainant. P4 - Copy of sale deed No. 512/95 dated 22.02.1995 executed by the complainant.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL
PRESIDENT
jb
| | [ Smt. S.K.Sreela] Member[HONORABLE MR. Sri G. Sivaprasad] PRESIDENT[ Smt. Beena Kumari. A] Member | |
