BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 447/2001

Dated: 30..06..2010

Complainant:

Y. Krishnankutty, K.P.18/288, Easwaran Thampy Nagar, Kallayam – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. S.V. Premakumaran Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Supply Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority, Nedumangadu.

(By Adv. C. Sasidharan Pillai)

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 20..01..2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..01.2010, the Forum on 30..06..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No.KLM-892, that the connection was put under non domestic category, simply because of the fact that a provision store is conducting in the shop room attached to the said building, that though the shop room is attached to the building it has no connection with the main building nor any water facilities availed to the said shop room and as a provision store no water connection is necessary for the said shop room, that complainant requested the opposite parties to convert the water connection from non domestic to domestic category, but opposite parties did not respond positively, that on 29/09/2001 opposite parties issued a notice to the complainant for Rs. 7,619/-. Complainant did not remit the said amount, that the opposite parties disconnected the said connection. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to treat the aforesaid connection as a domestic and declare that the complainant is not liable to pay the amount stated in the said notice and to direct opposite parties to restore water supply.

2. Opposite parties filed version contending that complainant availed a non domestic connection on 22/3/1995 as per his application, that the connection was given for the house as well as the shop in the same building as per the plan submitted by the complainant, that thereafter complainant informed the opposite parties that the said shop was closed and the category of connection has to be changed into domestic, that on enquiry it was found that the shop still remains functioning, that complainant remitted water charges upto 1/96 at the minimum rate for non domestic connection, that as the shop is still functioning in the same premises the connection cannot be converted into domestic as per rules, that opposite parties disconnected the connection only on 20/09/2001 since the complainant failed to remit water charges even after serving the cut off notice and giving sufficient time for remittance of water chargs. As long as the connection is not converted into domestic, the consumer is liable to pay charges at non domstic rate, that the bill issued by water authority is correct, that complainant has to comply with Regulations of the Kerala Water Authority in order to get connection converted into domestic category. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The issues that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether complainant is entitled to get connection under domestic category?

2. Whether complainant is entitled to get connection restored?

3. Whether complainant is liable to pay the amount as stated in the notice dated 29/09/2001?

4. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

5. Whether complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost?

In support of the claim, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 and has marked Exts. P1 to P4. In rebuttal, 2^nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not furnish any documents.

4. Points (i) to (v) : Admittedly, complainant was a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.KLM-892 there is no point in dispute that a shop room is attached to the building to which connection was given, there is no point in dispute that there was a provision store in the said shop room attached to the said building, there is no point in dispute that the connection was given in non domestic category. It has been the specific case of the complainant that connection was given under non domestic category solely based on the fact that a provision store is conducting in the shop room attached to the said building, that actually the said shop room has no connection with the main building nor any water facilities availed to the said shop room. It is further argued by the complainant that no water connection is necessary for the said shop room since it is a provision store. It has also been the case of the complainant that Kerala Water Authority did not act positively to the request made by the complainant to convert the said connection from non domestic to domestic category. Complainant did not remit the water charges because of the action of the opposite parties not to convert the connection from non domestic to domestic category which resulted in disconnection of supply. Ext. P1 is the copy of the letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant stating that complainant had remitted water connection upto 6/95 that on enquiry it was found that the said shop is still functioning as such complainant is liable to remit water charges from 7/95 to 9/01 failing which opposite parties will initiate the Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the complainant. Ext. P2 is the copy of the letter dated 24/9/2001 addressed to the 2^nd opposite party by the complainant requesting him to convert tariff from non domestic to domestic from 7/96 onwards and continue the said connection under domestic category. Ext. P3 is the copy of cut off notice issued by opposite parties informing him to remit the arrears of water charges Rs.7,395/- within 7 days from the service of notice upon him. In Ext. P3 it is further mentioned that if the amount not remitted within the time allowed the supply of water will be cut off from the said premises at complainant's expense. Ext. P4 is the copy of the acknowledgment card. Complainant did not produce the Provisional Invoice Card and the receipts, if any, showing the remittance. It is admitted by opposite parties in their version that complainant remitted water charges upto 1/96 at the minimum rate for non domestic connenction. The admitted fact need not be proved. Opposite parties never furnished any documents including meter reading register to substantiate their contention in the version. It is the say of the opposite parties that as the shop is still functioning in the said premises the connection cannot be conveted into domestic. Further as per Ext. P1 it is mentioned by opposite parties that on enquiry by the opposite parties still the shop is functioning in the said premises. In this connection it is to be mentioned that whether the extension of a shop room in the premises alone is a reason for connection under non domestis category. Whether the said shop room is having any water connection from the aforesaid connection. Opposite party has not furnished the enquiry report, if any, showing that water is taking from the said connection to the shop room. The very case of the complainant is that on enquiry about the exhorbitant bill issued by opposite parties he came to know that his water connection is under non domestic category though he has not applied for it. So the burden is on the opposite parties to show that complainant has applied for non domestic connection. Opposite parties never furnished any documents to show that he has applied for non domestic connection nor opposite parties adduced any evidence to show that the said shop room is taking water from the connection given to the premises, mere existence of a shop room in the premises may not be a reason to categorize water connection under non domestic, if the said shop uses water from the aforesaid connection then only opposite party can issue bill under non domestic category after issuing notice to complainant stating the reason. Here no evidence adduced by opposite parties to substantiate their contention in the version that complainant has used water in the shop room from the above said connection. Further opposite parties issued bill in the year 2001 though complainant failed to remit water charges from 1996 onwards. As per Water Supply Regulation meter reading has to be taken once in 6 months and excess bill if any has to be issued then and there that was not done in this case. Here complainant also not furnished any evidence to show that he has using water for domestic purpose alone. In the complaint it is stated that on comparing water charges from nearby residence he came to know that water charges exhorbitant for him. If that be so he could very well examine the nearby residents to show the veracity of his complaint for domestic purpose only. Complainant also not furnished evidence to show that he has used water for domestic purpose alone. Both sides failed to adduce evidence in favour of the respective averments in complaint and version respectively. Further opposite party has issued Ext. P3 notice for Rs. 7,395/- as arrerars. It is the duty of the opposite parties to mention amount of water consumed by the complainant and water charge for the respective consumption, no detailed bill furnished by opposite party to claim amount as per Ext. P3. In view of the foregoing discussion and evidence available on record we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if complainant is directed to remit 50% of the amount claimed by the opposite parties.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The notice issued by opposite party is cancelled. Complainant is directed to pay 50% of the amount claimed by opposite party vide Ext. P3 notice and opposite party shall accept the said amount towards arrears of water charges. On acceptance of the said amount opposite party shall restore the water supply to the consumer on application by the complainant. There is no compesnation in facts and circumstances of the case. Both parties shall bear and suffer their respective 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 30^th day of June, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

O.P.No.447/2001

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of letter dated 29/09/2001 issued by opp. Party

P2 : " dated 24/09/2001 issued by complainant.

P3 : " cut off notice

P4 : " acknowledgement card addressed to opp. Party.

3. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

4. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT

i