ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. Complaint seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- cost etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is the title holder in respect of the property and the building known as Hotel Thushara, Pulamon,Kottarakkara. The husband of the complainant Sri.C.T. Rajan obtained foreign liquor license and stared conducted a Hotel and Bar business in the said building from 1980. The persons who had been vested with the right to manage the business had been paying water charges, service charges etc during the period of license arrangement and upon determination of the license arrangement by efflux of time a fresh agreement was executed between the ailing registered owner of the hotel and bar business namely Sri.C.T. Rajan and the wife of the Managers for a period of 11 months which wasto be terminated on 28.2.2003. Complainant’s husband died on 13.4.2003. The legal heirs of Sri. C,.T. Rajan his mother and his two children and the complainant refused to renew the license arrangement because the managers committed several irregularities such as non payment of tax payable to the department etc. Smt. Mariamma Tharian, mother died on 12.6.2007 and his son died on 12.8.2008. The managers had been asked to vacate the premises after the demise of Sri.C.T. Rajan and this unfortunately ended up in a litigation between the managers and the complainant and other legal heirs before the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara as OS.287/03. Ultimately theHon. Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara pronounced a judgement and decree in OS 287/03 on 30.11.2005. The complainant assumed possession of the property and the building and renovated the building, set right and restored all amenities in the building and started the lodging house with effect from 16.2.2006. The complainant was not served with any bill or other communication from the opp.party either during May 1999. While starting the lodging house on 16.2.2006, the complainant made own arrangement for water supply and water connection having Consumer No. KTR/202/ND had practically been discontinued long back even during the period when the managers had been running the shoP in the building. The complainant does not have any water connection from Kerala Water Authority.. On 21.5.2009 the complainant received a communication dt. 20.5.2009 with the alleged Consumer No.KTR/202/ND to Jessy Cherian, Hotel Thushara, Pulamon, Kottarakkara whereby water charges upto 5/99 and upto 4/2009 including penalty to the tune of Rs.2,39,206/- had been levied on the complainant This action on the part of the opp.parties by issuing the notice dt 20.5.2009 to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint. The opp.parties filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Paa 2 of the complaint is no way connected with this opp.parties Para 3rd of the complaint is false and hence denied. Water connection has been taken on 14.1.1994. There is an arrears of water charges Rs.21,784 upto 5/99 Due to the non payment of water charges this opp.party is constrained to effect disconnection. The bill issued on legal way. The bill dt. 21.5.99 is accurate. It included penal interest also. The complainant is liable to pay the same, otherwise this opp.parties have every right to realize the same through Revenue Recovery Proceedings. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P3 are marked. For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined. POINTS: Complainant’s case is that she had a water connection in respect of Hotel Thushara from the opp.parties. On 11.7.2008 the 2nd opp.party issued a letter to the complainant that the water connection was disconnected with effect from 28.5.99. After that the complainant reeived a demand and disconnection notice dt. 20.5.09 stating that the complainant was liable to pay Rs.2,39,206/- by way of water charges retrospectively. The complainant did not receive any communication from the opp.parties prior to 21.5.2009. Hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties and prays for setting aside the said demand notice. Opp.parties main contentions are that the water connection was granted to Jessy Cherian and not to Jessy Rajan. Hence the complainant is not maintainable. Moreover Since R.R. Proceeding was initiated the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain thIS complaint. The questions to be decided are whether the complainant is maintainable and whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of opp.parties. With regard to first point, from the clarifications given from the side of the complainant it is revealed that the complainant and Jessy Cherian is one and the same person. There is no evidence produced from the side of the opp.parties to show that Revenue Recovery steps were initiated prior to the filing of the complaint. From the above two points the complaint is found maintainable before the Forum. The next point to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of opp.parties. There is no dispute that the date of disconnection of water is on 28.5.99. Ext.P3 shows that it was issued on 20.5.2009 ie after 10 years. That means the opp.party claimed the water charges after 10 years after the disconnection. As per Ext.P2 the arrears claimed is upto 4/09. As per clause [d] of regulation 13 of the Kerala Water Authority Regulations 1991 stipulates issuance of arrear bills once in every six months. But the said provision does not preclude the consumer from remitting the arrears of water charges for the water actually consumed. Regulation 14 prescribes levy of penal interest or fine for delayed payment of water charges. But the failure on the part of the opp.party issuing arrear bills once in every six months would not justify the water authority in levying fine or penal interest. So the complainant to not pay fine or penal interest on the said arrears of water charges because of the fact that the delay in issuing bills/. for the arrears of water charges occurred by the opp.party. Hence the complainant is made liable to pay the minimum charges of water covered by Ext. P2 bill dated 20.5.2009 in 12 equal bimonthly instalments without any fine or penal interest. In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The opp.party is directed to provide instalment facility to the complainant for remitting arrears of water charges calculated in minimum covered by Ext.P2 arrear bill. The fine and penal interest calculated in Ext.P2 is disallowed. Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. Dated this the 30TH day of October, 2010. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant Pw.1. – Jessy Rajan List of documents for the complainant P1. Application under Right to Information Act. Dt. 20.6.08 P2. – Information furnished by the Information office of opp.party P3. – Demand notice List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. - Siva Prasad.K.S. | 
