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. 71/2001
Dated: 30..09..2010
Complainant: Beema Kannu, W/o Abdul Khader, T.C 46/411, Pallitheruvu, Muttathara, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.C.S. Vijayachandran Nair)
Opposite party:
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Central Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.S. Bhanu Krishnakumar)
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 10..05..2005, 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 15..07..2010, the Forum on 30..09..2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant purchased 2.815 cents of property with building therein bearing T.C. 25/1572 (Old), T.C.42/2541 (New) from one Mr. Velappan Nair vide Sale Deed No.302/94, that the said building is having a water connection vide consumer No. PCH 4443, that after the purchase of the said property complainant applied for change in the ownership of water connection in her name, that opposite party had not transferred the same in her name, that after the purchase of the said property, the building therein was not used by her and the same was locked because of her personal inconvenience, that the said fact was informed to the opposite party in writing, that she has not paid water charges from 2/1994 till the date of this complaint, that on 20/01/2001 when she visited the building a notice has been affixed on the wall of the building from the Office of the opposite party, and that on reading the said notice it is seen that an amount of Rs.32,664/- is due towards water charges. It is submitted by the complainant that the beginning month is not stated in the said notice as such the calculation of the opposite party is baseless, that the complainant is not liable to pay the water charge because of the non-use of water in the building and the same was duly informed to the opposite party on 05/02/1994. Hence this complaint to declare that complainant is not liable to pay water charge as per notice dated 20/01/2001 and that if the said prayer is not allowable, to direct opposite party to calculate water charges at the rate of Rs. 36.50 per month from 2/1994 and pay compensation and cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
2. Opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, that the said connection was in the name of Mr. Velappan Nair, that no application has been received by opposite party's Office for change of ownership in favour of the complainant, that complainant would have to apply in the prescribed Form after clearing the arrears, that meter readings from 1988 to 2001 would show that there was substantial consumption of water by the complainant and hence consumer would be liable to pay the water charge, that the consumer has not remitted any water charge from 1/1994 onwards, that the said house was locked only on the ground floor and the first floor was occupied by the staff of the nearby business firm on rent, that on 11/1/2001 a notice dated 09/01/2001 was issued from the opposite party's Office and nobody was there at the spot to receive the notice and so the notice was affixed on the wall of the building, though the connection was installed as domestic, on 1/1997 the meter reader while visiting the plot found that an establishment named 'Asia Trade Link' was operating in the building, thereby the connection was changed as non-domestic as per rules. As per records, the PCH 4443 is the water connection related to 'Asia Trade Links' in the name of Mr. Velappan Nair. The billing was done based on the consumption of the water as per the meter readings. Hence the consumer is liable to pay the dues of water charges that he had already consumed. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether complainant is liable to pay water charges as claimed by opposite party vide notice dated 09/01/2001?
If the first point is found negative, at what rate is complainant liable to pay water charge?
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
Whether complainant is entitled to compensation and cost?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P6. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed affidavit and copy of the consumer ledger (Ext. D1 series). Complainant has not been cross examined by the opposite party.
4. Points (i) to (iv): Admittedly, there is water connection vide consumer No. PCH 4443 in the name of Mr. Velappan Nair and the said connection is under domestic category. It has been the case of the complainant that she purchased the property with building having the aforesaid water connection therein by virtue of Sale Deed No.302/94. Ext. P1 is the copy of the said Sale Deed. As per Ext. P1 one Beema Kannu is seen purchased the said property on 19/01/1994. It has also been the case of the complainant that after the purchase of the said property she filed an application on 5/2/1994 to opposite party for change in the ownership of water connection in favour of her. Opposite party has not changed the said ownership. It has also been the case of the complainant that after the purchase of the said property, the purchased building was not used by her and it was locked because of her personal inconvenience and the said matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party in writing. Ext. P2 is the copy of the letter from the complainant to Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Pattom requesting her to transfer water connection in her name. Ext. P3 is the copy of Provisional Invoice Card issued in the name of Velappan Nair. A perusal of Ext. P3 reveals that connection is under domestic category and monthly amount to be remitted is Rs. 36.50/-. Further on perusal of Payment Schedule printed overleaf of the Provisional Invoice Card it is seen consumer has remitted water charges upto to 10/1993. Ext. P4 is the copy of the pay-in-slip showing payment of water charges through Union Bank, Thiruvananthapuram on 17/01/1994 relating to consumer No. 4443, from which it can be inferred that consumer has remitted water charges upto 1/1994. Ext. P5 is the notice dated 09/01/2001 issued by opposite party to consumer No.4443 stating that consumer has not paid Rs. 32,664/- towards water charges upto 12/2000. In the said notice it is seen stated that supply of water will be cut off from the said premises at complainant's expense after seven days of the notice served upon her. It is not clear from Ext. P5 from which date onwards water charge fell due. Ext. P6 is the copy of the letter from the complainant to Assistant Executive Engineer requesting to revise arrears of water bill. It is seen stated in Ext. P6 that due to personal reasons complainant's family has not occupied the building and has not used the water, that she never used water from 19/01/1994 nor she occupied the said building. On perusal of Ext. D1 series consumer ledger it is seen that in the original ledger meter reading has been recorded upto 18/01/1995 as 1518kl. Computer print seen in Ext. D1 series wherein the said connection is categorised under non domestic and meter reading is recorded upto 3/2002 as 5952. As per Ext. P3 Provisional Invoice Card, the actual amount due will be ascertained on reading the meter and necessary adjustment bill showing amounts due to or from her will be sent once in six months. It is pertinent to point out that though opposite party has recorded meter reading from 2/94 to 3/02 no notice or bill is seen issued by opposite party prior to Ext. P5 notice dated 09/01/2001. Had opposite party taken meter reading at regular intervals, they would have definitely sent bills immediately thereafter. Herein as per Ext. D1 series, meter reading is seen recorded on various dates 18/1/95, 15/2/96, 16/197, 15/6/98, 15/3/99, 15/12/99, 9/1/01, 1/11/01 & 4/3/2002. Opposite party has not acted as per the Water Supply Regulations. Opposite party has no case that they have issued notice then and there. Further it is stated by opposite party that the meter reader while visited the plot on 1/97 found that an establishment named 'Asia Trade Link' was operating in the said building. Opposite party never furnished mahazar report nor did opposite party issue any notice to consumer prior to the conversion of tariff from domestic to non domestic. Though Water Supply Regulations empowered opposite party to take action against the connection, nothing is seen done by opposite party. The burden is upon the opposite party to show that complainant has used water for non domestic purpose. Opposite party has not examined any witness to prove that complainant has used water for non domestic purpose. As per Ext. P2 dated 5/2/94 complainant requested the opposite party to change the ownership of water connection from the former consumer to her name. Further it is uttered by complainant that she has not occupied the said building due to her personal inconvenience and the said matter was brought to the notice of opposite party. Opposite party was inert till 9/2001. Complainant has no case that the meter was faulty. It is the very case of the complainant that she has not used the water due to non occupation of the building. Opposite party was silent from 1994 to 2001 without taking any action against consumer whether she has used water or not, opposite party failed to exercise its power in pursuance of the Water Supply Regulations. The burden is upon the opposite party to prove that complainant has used water under non domestic purpose. Opposite party failed to do so. In view of the foregoing discussions and evidence available on records we think it is just and proper to direct complainant to pay water charge as per the Provisional Invoice Card issued to the consumer.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Complainant is not liable to pay water charge as per Ext. P5 notice dated 9/1/2001. Opposite party is directed to collect water charge as per the Provisional Invoice Card issued to the consumer from 2/94 to 1/2001. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Both 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 September, 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI. A.,
MEMBER.
S.K. SREELA,
MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No. 71/2001
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of Sale Deed No. 302/1994
P2 : " application dated 5/2/1994 signed by the complainant send to the opposite party.
P3 : " payment schedule
P4 : " pay-in-slip dated 17/1/1994 for the water charge
P5 : " water cut off notice dated 9/1/2001
P6 : " application dated 22/01/2001.
III. Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents:
D1 : Copy of consumer ledger
PRESIDENT.
