O R D E R

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.

Case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner conducted a Medical Shop in the name as 'Sakthi Medicals' in Changancherry municipality from 1973, as a means of self employment, for his livelihood. Non domestic water supply connection was availed by the opposite party to the petitioner with vide consumer No. 677/C. Petitioner states that on September 2001 he closed the medical shop and on 28..8..2001 petitioner had given a request letter intimating the opposite parties regarding the closure of the medical shop and requested the opposite party to disconnect the water connection. According to the petitioner he had remitted the water charge upto 9/2001. Despite the petitioner's letter requesting disconnection on 14..6..2006 a notice was issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the petitioner stating that there is dues for the water supply connection which is disconnected

-2-

from 3/2005. According to the opposite party the dues bill is for Rs. 6206/- so, the petitioner on 20..2..2007 sent a lawyers notice to the opposite party and it is received by the second opposite party and they sent a reply stating that the petitioner is still liable to pay the water charges and the petitioner has not remitted requsite fee of Rs. 65/- for disconnection. The petitioner states that if the opposite party intimated the petitioner about the procedural requirement at the very first instance. Petitioner will remit the amount for disconnection. So, the petitioner states that act of the opposite party in issuing exhobitant bill after closure of the business concern of the petitioner is a clear deficiency of service. So, he prays for a declaration that the bill issued to the petitioner is not maintainable and is not binding on the petitioner. He also prays for restraining the opposite parties from initiating R.R proceedings. He claims Rs. 5000/- , compensation and cost of the proceedings.

The second opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the second opposite party as per Water Supply Regulations 1991, the consumer who is willing to disconnect the water supply connection has to request for the same in RA 4 and remit Rs 65/- as disconnection fee. In this case petitioner has not acted as per law. The water supply connection of the petitioner was actually disconnected during 3/2005. On receipt of the lawyer's notice from the petitioner opposite parties send a detailed reply for it. Opposite party contented that watter supply connection of the petitioner was disconnected due to pending arrears. So, they pray, for a dismissal of the petition with their costs.

-3-

Points for determinations are:

i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

ii) Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner, and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party.

Point No. 1

Petitioner closed his business on September 2001 and he intimate the said fact to the opposite party for disconnection of his water supply connection. The petitioner produced photo copy of letter dtd: 28..8..2006, said document is marked as Ext. A1. But

the petitioner has not produced any evidence to prove that such a letter was communicaated to the opposite party. As per regulation 9(d) of the water supply regulation 1991. If the owner desires to disconnect his connection permenantly he shall apply in form No. RA 4 to the Assistant Executive Engineer through licenced plumber along with an application fee of Rs. 15/- and disconnection fee of Rs.50/-. The Assistant Executive Engineer on receipt of application scrutinised the application and, if satisfied, issue sanction for the disconnection in form No. RA 7. Here the petitioner has not complied the legal formalities to be followed as per law. The ignorance of the law pleaded is not acceptable. So, we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service can be attributed against the opposite party for the issuance additional bill. However, from the meter reading produced by the petitioner it can be seen that no water was consumed by the petitioner after 3/98. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.

-4-

Point No. 2

In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed in part. The opposite party is ordered to issue a revised bill to the petitioner without charging any interest or fine to the petitioner. Further more the petitioner will be given an opportunity to remit the amount in 5 equal instalments. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no cost and compensation is ordered.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of October, 2008.