BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 461/2001 Filed on 07.11.2001

Dated : 28.02.2009

Complainants:

1. R. Mohanambika, Pandit Buildings, Palayam, University P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

Addl. Complainants:

2. V.S. Sivamohan, residing at Ingledene, T.C 27/2769, Vellayambalam, Keston Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

3. S. Dinesh Sivanandan, residing at Ingledene, T.C 27/2769, Vellayambalam, Keston Road, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Rita Nayar)

Opposite parties:

1. The Assistant Executive Engineer, North Division, Kerala Water Authority, Public Health Division, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram – 10.

(By adv. P. Dileepkhan)

This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.01.2009, the Forum on 28.02.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the 1^st complainant was the owner of the building bearing T.C No. 11/237, (New T.C. No. 11/264) that originally the mother of the 1^st complainant was the consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. KDR 90, and after her death, 1^st complainant succeeded the said building and possessed and owned by her and thus became the consumer of the water connection, that the said building was never let out to anybody and it was locked for the past 25 years and the said fact was known to opposite party also, that there was no water consumption during the said period and the same was intimated by the 1^st complainant to opposite parties personally and by representation about the non-consumption of water in the said building, that on 11.03.2001 during her occasional visit to the said building a cut off notice dated 24.01.2001 was seen affixed in the said building alleging default of payment of Rs. 1,20,524/-, and that no such bill/provisional invoice card ever issued to the complainant by the opposite parties. The said notice was addressed to S.V. Pandit, T.C 11/237, Rotary Club. Consumer No. KDR 90 was in the name of Ramu Ammal, the mother of the 1^st complainant. S.V. Pandit has nothing to do with the said building. Further no rotary club ever functioned in the said building since the said building was kept vacant for the last 25 years. There was no water consumption. Hence complainant is not liable to pay the amount demanded by the opposite party. Complainant sent an advocate notice dated 14.03.2001 which was received by the opposite party, but no reply was sent to the complainant. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party to exonerate the complainant from the liability to pay the illegal demand as per cut off notice dated 24.01.2001 and to recover Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs.

Opposite parties filed version contending that water supply connection KDR 90 is in the name of S.V. Pandit, T.C 11/237, that any change in ownership is not known to the opposite parties and nobody applied for change of ownership as per the provisions of Water Supply Regulations, and that a rotary club was functioning in the said building and hence the connection was treated as non-domestic. It is contended that the water meter of the said connection was working till 10/86, that consumer had remitted water charges upto 10/89 at the fixed average of 133 KL per month, and that even at this time the consumer has not reported on change of ownership or on vacant building. If the building was kept vacant for the last 25 years the owner would have applied for temporary disconnection of water supply and got it disconnected. Till date there was no such attempt from the consumer. During site inspection on 18.12.2001 it was seen that maintenance work was going on in the said building and on local enquiry it was understood that the building was vacant for some period. Since the consumer failed to make any remittance ever since 10/89 and there was an arrear of Rs. 1,20,524/- upto 01/2001, the cut off notice was affixed in the said building. Opposite party was having no option other than issuing cut off notice. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is liable for the amount vide notice dated 24.01.2001?

2. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. Reliefs and costs.

    

In support of the complaint, additional 2^nd complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not file any documents.

Points (i) to (iii):- It has been the case of the complainants that 1^st complainant was a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. KDR 90 in the building bearing T.C. No. 11/237, that originally the said building belonged to 1^st complainant's mother Ramu Ammal and after her death the said building's title devolved on to 1^st complainant, that the said building was never let out to anybody and locked for the past 25 years and the same was intimated by the complainant to opposite parties, and that there was no consumption of water during the said period. On death of the 1^st complainant, additional complainants were impleaded. It has also been the case of the complainants that on 11.03.2001 during her occasional visit to the said building, the 1^st complainant surprised to see a cut off notice dated 24.01.2001 affixed in the said building alleging default of payment of Rs. 1,20,524/- as water charges without mentioning the details from which date the water charges fell due, that the said notice was addressed to S.V. Pandit, T.C. 11/237, Rotary Club. Submission urged by the complainant is that S.V. Pandit is not the owner of the building, nor he the consumer holder of the said building. Ext. P1 is the copy of the cut off notice dated 24.01.2001. As per Ext. P1, the cut off notice is addressed to S.V. Pandit, T.C 11/237, Rotary Club and the defaulted amount mentioned is Rs. 1,20,524/-. It is stated in Ext. P1 notice that the supply of water will be cut off from the said premises after 7 days of the impugned notice. Ext. P2 is the copy of the advocate notice dated 14.03.2001 addressed to the 1^st opposite party. Ext. P3 series are the postal receipt and acknowledgement card. Main thrust of argument advanced by the counsel appearing for the complainants was to the effect that without issuance of notice to the consumer in correct address or hearing the complainant or giving opportunity to be heard, the cut off notice in the name of S.V. Pandit was affixed in the premises of the complainant which would be against the principle of natural justice. It has been rebutted by the opposite party by submitting that as per KWA records, water supply connection is still in the name of Sri. S.V. Pandit, T.C 11/237, that the change in ownership is not known to Kerala Water Authority, nor has anybody applied for change of ownership as per KWA Regulation. Submission urged by the opposite parties is that a Rotary Club was functioning in the said building and hence the connection was treated as non-domestic, that water meter of the said connection was working till 10/86 and that the consumer had remitted water charges upto 10/89 at the fixed average of 133 KL per month. It is urged by the opposite parties that consumer has not intimated regarding the non-consumption of water, nor has consumer applied for temporary disconnection of water supply. Submission by the opposite party is that on 18.12.2001 during site inspection, it was seen that maintenance work was going on in the said building and it was also understood on local enquiry that the building was vacant for the past some period. Complainant did not produce the provisional invoice card issued in the name of the complainant nor did the complainant produce the former provisional invoice card issued in the name of the mother of the 1^st complainant nor did complainant furnish the title deed showing the ownership of the said building nor did the complainant furnish any former consumer bill issued by opposite parties in their favour to substantiate their pleadings in the complaint. It is pertinent to note that on seeing the cut off notice in the name of S.V. Pandit affixed in their premises, complainant sent an advocate notice to 1^st opposite party, who received the same by Ext. P3 series, but no reply was sent to the complainant. Since complainant had challenged the veracity of the Ext. P1 cut off notice addressed to S.V. Pandit, opposite party is bound to prove that the said consumer No. is not in the name of the mother of the 1^st complainant, but in the name of S.V. Pandit. Opposite parties did not furnish any documents in support of the version. It is further to be noted that as per provisions of the Kerala Water Supply Regulations, meter reading will be taken once in six months and on the basis of the meter reading adjustment bill showing amount due from the consumer will be sent to the consumer. If the said adjustment bills were issued by opposite parties as per the provisions of the Regulation, it would not saddle the consumer with huge amount. Non-issuance of the said bill in time is a clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Further prior to the issuance of cut off notice, opposite parties must send the arrear bill showing the details of meter reading-present meter reading and previous meter reading, status of the water meter, arrear amount, from which date the period starts etc. Ext. P4 is the copy of bill dated 6^th November 2006, wherein it is seen stated the meter not working and arrear amount is Rs. 4,12,577/-, no further details are stated therein. In the affidavit of 1^st opposite party, it is stated that on site inspection on 18.12.2001, it is seen that maintenance work was going on. It was also understood on local enquiry that building was vacant for the past some period. If that is so, there is remote possibility for the use of water in the said building and calculation of arrears without disclosing the details of water consumption is against the principles of natural justice and equity. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find complainants are not liable to pay the amount as per cut off notice dated 24.01.2001.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Complainants are hereby exonerated from the liability to pay the demand of Rs. 1,20,524/- vide notice V 742/2001 dated 24.01.2001. There will be no compensation and costs in facts and circumstances of the case.

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 day of 28^th February 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 461/2001

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of notice (original) No. V 742/2001 dated 24.01.2001 of Consumer No. KDR 90 from Asst. Exe. Engineer, Sub Division North, Tvpm.

P2 - Advocate notice dated 14.03.2001 issued to opposite party.

P3

(series) - 1. Acknowledgement card with date of delivery 17.03.2001.

2. Postal receipt dated 15.03.2001.

P4 - Copy of demand and disconnection notice dated 06.11.2006.

III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT