KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO. 776/05 JUDGMENT DATED: 18.3.2010 PRESENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Kurian.V.J., : APPELLANT 39/5656, M.G.Road, Ravipuram. (By Adv.K.K.M.Sheriff) Vs. 1. The Kerala Water Authority, : RESPONDENTS P.H.Sub Division, Pallimukku, Ernakulam. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H.Sub Division, Pallimukku, Ernakulam. JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER It is aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by the CDRF, Ernakulam in OP 582/04 that the present appeal is filed by the complainant calling for the interference of the commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum alleging that though he had sold his house to other persons as back in 1998, the opposite party/ Water authority has been issuing the bills in the name of the complainant and that though the service was disconnected in 1999, the opposite parties had not considered the said fact while issuing the impugned bills. The complainant’s further case is that he had intimated the opposite parties about the disposal of his house and though he was ready to pay charges upto March 1999, the opposite parties were adamant in collecting charges for the connection that was not in existence from 1999 onwards. 3. The contentions raised by the opposite parties were that the sale of the house could not be treated as ground for non payment of the water charges and that the arrears calculated upto October 2004 came to Rs.34586/- which the complainant was liable to pay. It was also submitted that the amount became so huge due to the fact that the complainant was not remitting any charges from 3/93 onwards. Submitting that there was no deficiency in service the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs. 4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents A1 to A8 were marked. The Forum had appointed a Commissioner who inspected the disputed premises and the report of the Commissioner was marked as Ext.C1. Based on the above documents the Forum below has come to the conclusion that the complainant is liable to pay water charges from 3/93 onwards and that the transfer of the building to other persons cannot be treated as a ground for non payment of water charges. Finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complaint was dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that the order dismissing the complaint of the Forum below is per se illegal and unsustainable on the ground that Forum has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the complainant in its correct perspective. He has argued before us that the Forum has not appreciated the contention of the complainant that it was not only the transfer of the premises that he had disputed for the non payment of the impugned bills. He has argued that the connection was disconnected and the meter was taken away in March, 1999 and the Commissioner’s report would also support his case that there was no connection in the premises under the same consumer number after March,1999. The learned counsel has submitted that the complainant is ready and willing to pay the arrears from 1991 to 1999 and that any amount after that period is not liable to be paid by the complainant/appellant. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the records we find that the Forum below has passed the order on the mere ground that the transfer of the building to other persons in 1998 cannot be a ground for non payment of water charges. It seems that Forum was under the opinion that there was water connection to the premise even after March, 1999. The complainant/appellant would argue that after the sale of building in 1998 he had requested the opposite parties to disconnect the water connection and that the authorized persons of the opposite parties had come to the building and disconnected the same. The Commissioner’s report would also indicate that there was no connection in the complainants name in the disputed premises. It is also observed that the opposite parties have not filed any objection to the Commissioner’s report. Further it is seen that opposite parties have not tendered any evidence to show that they are entitled to realize water charges from the complainant ever after 1999. It is also found that the opposite parties have issued a bill directing the complainant to pay arrears from 1991 to 1999. It is hard to believe that the opposite parties were giving water to the premises even after non payment of water charges for a long period of 8 years. It is but natural that the opposite parties have disconnected the water supply and the contention of the complainant/appellant that the opposite party had disconnected water supply in 1999 deserves merit and in such circumstances it is our impeccable impression that the opposite parties had disconnected the supply in 1999 and the complainant is not liable to pay water charges thereafter. 7. The complainant/appellant submitted before us that he is ready to remit charges upto March 1999 which comes to Rs.4300/-. The said amount is for the period from 1991 to 1999. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the complainant is liable to pay said amount with interest from 1999 onwards. The opposite parties are at liberty to realize the said amount from the complainant/appellant with usual interest till date of realisation. In the result the appeal is allowed in part thereby the complaint is also allowed in part whereby the complainant is liable to pay only the charges from 1991 to 1999 with usual rates of interest existing in the Kerala Water Authority. The opposite parties are liable to pay the costs which is fixed as Rs.2000/- for the proceedings through out. The costs so awarded can be adjusted towards the liability of the complainant. SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Ps | 
