SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complaint is filed against the Kerala Water Authority for deficiency in service and also for cancelling the excess bill charged against the complainant.

The Ist complainant is a consumer of the water connection No.117 under the Ist opposite party. The 2nd complainant was running a Cool Bar in the building at which the connection was given. The 2nd opposite party issued Revenue Recovery proceedings against the Ist complainant and the 2nd opposite party is arrayed as a necessary party and no relief is claimed against the 2nd opposite party. The complainant has been paying the water charges to the Ist opposite party. In the year 1999 the Vannappuram-Mundanmudi road was expanded and due to the road construction, the water connection of the Ist complainant was disconnected and the pipe was destroyed. The complainant reported the matter to the Ist opposite party and the Ist opposite party's then Assistant Engineer Smt.Lissy inspected the site. However, inspite of the inspection and complaints, the opposite party did not repair the pipe. On the next water reading, the meter reader recorded in their record as the meter faulty. The opposite party in the year 2002 issued a demand notice for the arrears of water charges. On getting the arrear bill the 2nd complainant went to the Ist opposite party's office and gave a written complaint to cancel the bill issued by the Ist opposite party and the opposite party agreed to do the needful. In the last week of January 2007, the 2nd opposite party sent a notice demanding Rs.21,192/- as arrears in water charges. The Ist opposite party has no right to demand the water charges for the disconnected period. Hence, the issuance of revenue recovery proceedings against the Ist complainant and the demand of water charges are deficiency in the service of the Ist opposite party. So the complaint is filed for getting a direction to cancel the excess bill and also for compensation.

2. The Ist opposite party appeared and filed written version. It is admitted that the complainant was having a domestic water connection with No.117 since 1/96. The opposite party is not aware of the fact of conducting of the Cool Bar in the building in which the connection was given. The 2nd complainant was never a consumer of the the opposite party. The Ist complainant remitted water charges only upto May 1997. The water charges from May 1997 were due to the Authority from the Ist complainant. The opposite party was not aware of the destruction or disconnection of the water connection while the construction of Vannappuram-Mundanmudi road in 1999. The service connection pipe from the distribution main to water meter was laid by the consumer himself at his on cost by a licensed plumber with the sanction of the Authority. Any repair to the connection also has to be done at the cost of the consumer as per the sanction of the Authority. No such damage was reported to the Authority or no repair was done by the consumer. It is admitted that in the year 2000 the meter showed faulty. Bill No.27561 dated 12.08.1999 for Rs.2066/- and Bill No.28105 dated 3.03.2000 for Rs.2840-/- were issued to the Ist complainant for the arrears of water charges. The Ist complainant neither remitted the bill amount nor made any written complaint against the bills. The disconnection notice was given to himself with a demand of Rs.3,960/- as arrears. No objection was made by the consumer for the same. So the consumer has to remit the minimum water charges with fine. The disconnection notice dated 4.06.2005 for Rs.15290/- and revenue recovery notice for Rs.21,192/- were also issued to the Ist complainant. The Authority has legal right to get the arrears of water charges from May 1997 onwards and so Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated against the Ist complainant. The complaint is filed by the complainant as an experiment to avoid the payments due to the authority from the Ist complainant. So the complaint may be dismissed.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant. The Ist opposite party was examined as DW1 and Ext.R1(series) marked on the side of the opposite parties.

5.The POINT :- The first complainant is a consumer of the water connection No.117 of the Ist opposite party. Ext.P1 is the copy of the Provisional Invoice Card issued for the same. The 2nd complainant was conducting a Cool Bar in the same building. The water connection of the building is disconnected and the pipe was destroyed in the year 1999 when the road was expanded. The Ist complainant reported the same to the Ist opposite party's office. The Assistant Engineer of the Ist opposite party named Lissy inspected the premises on that time as per the request and the matter was reported to the said Assistant Engineer. Even after, Ist opposite party's office issued water bills and now the RR notice is initiated for Rs.21,192/-. Ext.P2 is the copy of the same. The 2nd complainant was examined as PW1, he deposed that the pipe line to his shop was destroyed by the work of the road. Written complaint was given in Ist opposite party's office about this. The complaint was given because of the non-availability of water. He paid water charges upto 1998. When he applied for disconnection the Ist opposite party's office demanded for the payment of arrear bills and only after that the connection will be disconnected in official. The complainant did not pay the bill because of the non-availability of water. The Ist opposite party was examined as DW1. DW1 deposed that the water authority has the responsibility to supply water upto the main water pipe through public road. If there is any default in consumer connection, the consumer has to repair the same. The Ist complainant paid water charges upto 1997 May. On 2000, while inspection, it was seen that the meter was faulty. There is an arrear of Rs.2,006/- in 1999. The consumer have to pay Rs.102/- as fixed charge for every month without considering the consumption of water. DW1 did not inspect the premises of the complainant. Staff of the department inspected the premises. DW1 is not aware that whether there is meter in 1999. But it is reported in 2000 that the meter is fault. DW1 is also not aware that the service water connection of the consumer is disconnected due to road widening. No intimation was received to him. But if the water bill is not received after one month, the opposite party can disconnect the water connection as per the Act. Ext.R1(series) is the consumer personal ledger of the Ist complainant. It is written, meter fault in 14/01/2000 in Ext.R1(a). It is clear that the water connection of the Ist complainant is disconnected due to widening of the road. But no intimation was received officially about the matter to opposite party No.1. The 2nd complainant is running a Bakery and Cool Bar in Ist complainant's shop. Eventhough he complained the matter, no action was taken. Because of the non-availability of the staff the Ist opposite party is not able to take the meter reading once in 6 months as per the Act. So they are also unaware of the matter whether the water was consuming by the complainant. But the meter is seen faulty as per Ext.R1(a) in 14/01/2000. The official disconnection was made by the Ist opposite party was only on 4.06.2005. It is the duty of the Ist opposite party to inspect the water connection meter of the consumers once in 6 months. It is not at all done even after years. It is a gross deficiency in the part of Ist opposite party. To issue the water bill without taking meter reading or not even inspecting the premises without checking, whether there is any water connection is existing to the consumer, it is not proper. Five water bills are arrear to the complainant from 1999 onwards. Total amount is rupees Rs.21,192/-. The complainant had paid only bill upto 1988. So we think it is fit to cancell all the bills issued to the complainant after 14.01.2000 when the meter is seen default. The bill of Rs.2,066/- have to be paid by the complainant which was within the time of disconnection. The Ist opposite party have to enquire the matter in appropriate authorities whether the water connection was disconnected due to widening of the road , if so, from which day onwards. The Ist opposite party can issue the exact bill if it is needed after detailed enquiry.

As a result, the petition allowed. The Ist opposite party is directed to cancel the arrears of water charge bills issued against the Ist complainant as consumer No.117 after 14.01.2000. The Ist opposite party can issue fresh bill if necessary after making detailed enquiry of the date of disconnection of the complainant's water connection due to widening of the road, for the water charges upto the date of disconnection. The opposite party is entitled to get the bill No.27561 dated 12.08.1999 for Rs.2,066/- from the complainant. The Ist opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as the cost of this petition to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of August, 2008