Prakash Building

Pattikkara, Palakkad                                       -       Complainant

(By Adv.P.Gopinathan)                                   V/s

1.The Assistant Executive  Engineer,

   P.H.Subdivision

  Kerala Water Authority, Palakkad.

  (By Adv.Raghu)

2.The Deputy Tahasildar (R.R)

   Palakkad 

3.The Village Officer

    Palakkad I Village,  Palakkad                       -                  Opposite parties

O R D E R

            By Smt.SEENA H, PRESIDENT

            Brief case of the complainant:

          Complainant was the owner of the building numbered 31/41 at Vadakkanthara in Palakkad which had water connection provided  by the opposite party No.1.  The building was demolished in the year 1998. Prior to that the complainant had given a letter to the Kerala Water Authority, Palakkad to disconnect the water connection.  Complainant received a demand notice Under Section 7 of RR Act directing the complainant to pay Rs.21,458/ being the arrears of water charge  due upto 12/11/2008 which fell due on 14/6/2009.  Immediately complainant sent a letter dated 23/6/2010 to 1^st opposite party requesting for cancellation of the arrears charged.  Opposite party sent no reply. According to complainant, he has no liability to pay the amount since the building was demolished in the year 1998.  Also the claim of the water authority is barred by limitation.  Complainant further enquired with the 1^st opposite party by way of  Right to Information Act as how the calculation of the amount in the RR notice was arrived at for which he had given the copy of consumer ledger showing the demand details from August 2003 to November 2008.  No details was given in the ledger for the amount to be paid prior to August 2003. With regard to the enquiry  as to the order on the application for surrender of water connection, it was informed that the file is not available.  According  to the complainant the amount claimed is without any basis and hence the complaint.  Complainant prays to quash the RR proceedings  initiated against  the complainant in pursuance of the bill issued by opposite party 1 and to pay the complainant  an amount  of Rs.1,00,000/ as compensation.

          Opposite party No.1 filed version contending the following:

That the complainant has availed a non  domestic water connection.  Since the connection is utlised for commercial purpose, complainant cannot be termed  as a consumer within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. 1^st Opposite party   deny the say of the complainant that the building was demolished in the year 1998 and after that there was no water connection to the building.  Complainant has paid water charges till December 2001.  In the year 1999 he has paid the charges two  times and in the year 2001 also complainant has paid water charges 2 times.  Complainant has neither applied in the prescribed format for disconnection nor paid the prescribed fees. 
          Disconnection will be done only after proper compliance of the formalities.  As per KWA Rules & Regulations there is no need to take meter reading every month.  There is no deficiency in service on  the part of the opposite party and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Both parties filed their respective affidavit.  Ext.A1 to Ext.A6  marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 to B3 marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.

Now the issues that arises for our consideration is that

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

    2.If so, what is the relief and costs  complainant is entitled to ?

          Issues 1 & 2

          The definite case of  the complainant is to quash the water bill for Rs.21,458 issued by 1^st opposite party.  According to complainant the building was demolished in the year 1998 itself and complainant has made a request to 1^st opposite party   for disconnection  of water supply. Bill was raised  for the period after demolition and hence complainant is not liable to pay the bill charges.

          1^st Opposite party   deny the say of the complainant that the building was demolished in the year 1998.  According to 1^st opposite party, complainant has paid water charges in the year 1999 as well as in the year 2001. Complainant has neither applied in the prescribed  format for disconnection nor paid any disconnection charges.  Further there is no need to take meter reading every month.  Hence no deficiency in service  on the part opposite parties.

          Heard both parties and gone through the entire evidence on record.

          Ext.A1 which is the demand notice issued U/s 7 of RR Act shows that amount due upto  12/11/08 is demanded.  Complainant    by an application under Right to information act  has enquired as to how the amount has  been arrived for which opposite party has provided Ext.A6,  Computer ledger extract which shows that the amount due as on 8/2003 as Rs.2504/-. In Ext.B3 which is the details stated to be copied from the manual ledger, it is stated   the complainant has finally paid Rs.712/- as water charge on 7^th December 2001 vide receipt No.486064 for the period 2001 July to December 2001.  Further the monthly wise payment details from 1/2002 to 8/2003 is shown payment include the fixed charge of Rs.102/- and fine.  Amount due as on 8/2003 is shown as Rs.2501/-. Further payment  details from 8/2003 to 11/2008 is seen in the computer ledger extract marked as Ext.B1.  Ext.B2 copy of the relevant page of the meter reading recording  register  shows the entry as follows:

          6/7/98 reading 1259000 not using, locked. On 21/4/99 also reading is seen to be noted, but chargeable liters  not recorded.  There after there is no meter reading as per Ext.B2.  2^nd opposite party also admits that after 21/4/99 no meter reading has been taken.

          The evidence on record go on to show that 1^st opposite party has not taken any meter reading after 21/4/99.   Prior to that on 6/7/98 it is recorded as not using, locked.  Complainant has stated  in the affidavit that the building was demolished in the year 1998.  Further in  Ext.A4 and A5 being the question raised by the complainant by way of Right to Information Act and the answers produced by opposite party1, the Q & A regarding demolition is as follows:

tNm: 1998 lcnPn¡mc³ hm«À aoÁÀ kd­­À sNbvXt¸mÄ t_m[n¸n¨ At]£bn³taepÅ D¯chv F´mWv ?  B D¯chnsâ ]IÀ¸v

D : 1998 lcnPn¡mcsâ At]£bpw AXn³ta \ÂInbncn¡p¶ D¯chpw F´msW¶v Adnbm³ Sn ^b CÃm¯Xn\m Ignbp¶nÃ.

          The combined analysis of all these will give us  an inference that since the building was demolished, 1^st opposite party could not take the reading after 21/4/99.

          Again 1^st  opposite party has claimed     arrears  for the period 1/2002 to 11/2008, i.e. approximately  for a period of 9 years.  Amount claimed includes the fixed charge of Rs.102/ alongwith fine.  The question is whether the opposite party is justified in claiming the said amount.  Regulation 13 of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulation 1991, provides as follows:

          Regulation 13 – Assessment of water charges -

          (a) The water consumed  at the premises of a consumer shall be assessed at such intervals as decided by the Executive Engineer from time to time, based on meter reading taken from the meter fixed to the house connection at the premises of the consumer.

          (b) The Authority may also fix the monthly rate of water charges of a consumer based on his average consumption of water for any previous  six months in the case of existing  connections and based on the estimated consumption in the case of new connections and issue a provisional card in Form No.VIII indicating there in the amount of water charges payable by the consumer every month, the date of payment and the institution at which the amount is to be remitted.  The charges so fixed shall be revised if the consumption of water at the premises of the consumer is found to have increased or decreased based on the observations of the meter reading taken in the subsequent  six months to the last period.  

          (C.) The Authority may also introduce a slab system for collection of water charges.  The slab so fixed shall be revised if the consumption of water at the premises of the consumer is found to have increased or decreased as the case may be, based on observations of the meter reading taken in the subsequent six months to the last period.   

       As per the regulation,  slab has to be changed based on the reading of  six months.  So reading has to be taken at the minimum once in 6 months.  In the present case for approximately 9 years there is no meter reading.  Hence we are of the view that the assessment by opposite party is without any basis and is illegal.

          Further regarding the contention that the complainant has not applied in the prescribed format and has not paid any disconnection charges, it is provided that in Regulation  22 of water supply regulations  that  

22. Disconnection of house connection in certain case – The Assistant Executive Engineer may disconnect  the house connection given from the mains to any premises,

       (b) If the building in a premises to which a house connection is given is demolished partly or fully so as to make it uninhabitable or unoccupiable.

Again Section 45 of Kerala water supply & sewage Act provides that

(1)  The authority may cut off the water supply from any premises, -

      (a) If any tax, free rental, cost of water or any charge or other sum due

           under this Act, is not paid within a period of thirty days after service of

           a bill for the same.

          In the affidavit complainant has stated that he has applied for disconnection of water supply.  In view of the above stated provision we are of the view that even if complainant not applied for the same, opposite party 1 has ample power to disconnect the supply.  Disconnection charges can very well be levied by way of RR proceedings.

          Facts, pleading & evidence gone to be show that 1^st opposite party is  deficient   in the  service  towards the complainant.  Complainant is not liable to pay the bill issued without any basis.

          In the result, Complaint allowed.  Opposite party 1 is directed to recall the RR proceedings issued against the complainant and pay complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/ as cost of the proceedings.

          Pronounced in the open court on the 27^th   day of January 2011.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                      Smt.Seena H

                                                                                      President      

                                                                                                                                                                                          Sd/-                                                                                            Smt.Preetha.G.Nair

                                                                                           Member

Sd/-                          

                                                                                       Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K        

                                                                                             Member  

APPENDIX

Exhihbits marked on the side of the complaint

Ext.A1 – Demand Notice issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant

             dtd.17/2/10 (Original)

Ext.A2 – Attachment notice issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant

             dt.17/2/10 (Original)

Ext.A3 – Letter sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party (photocopy)

Ext.A4 -  Application under RI Act submitted by the complainant before the 1^st

              OP (Photocopy)

Ext.A5 – Reply given by the 1^st OP to the complainant application (Original)

Ext.A6 – Consumer ledger given by the 1^st OP to the complainant (3 pages)

              Original

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 – Consumer personal ledger computerised attested copy three pages

Ext.B2 – Consumer personal ledger manual attested true coy

Ext.B3 – Calculation statement  attested true copy

Cost – Allowed – Rs.1000/ allowed as cost of proceedings