| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.181/2017 DATED ON THIS THE 19h January 2018 Present: 1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT 2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi B.Sc., LLB., - MEMBER 3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C. B.E., LLB., PGDCLP, - MEMBER COMPLAINANT/S | | : | - N.Sunandadevi, W/o H.Hanumanthaiah, 108, Yogakshema Marga, Jeeva Vima Nagara, Srirampura 2nd Stage, Mysuru-570023.
- H.Hanumanthaiah, 108, Yogakshema Marga, Jeeva Vima Nagara, Srirampura 2nd Stage, Mysuru-570023.
(INPERSON) | | | | | | | | V/S | | OPPOSITE PARTY/S | | : | Assistant Executive Engineer, Office of Vani Vilasa Water Supply, Yadavagiri, Mysuru. (Sri C.N.Mahesh, Adv.) | | Nature of complaint | : | Deficiency in service | Date of filing of complaint | : | 12.06.2017 | Date of Issue notice | : | 19.06.2017 | Date of order | : | 19.01.2018 | Duration of Proceeding | : | 7 MONTHS 7 DAYS | | | | | | | | |
Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR, Member - The complainants filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite party, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and seeking a direction not to discontinue the supply of water and to set right the levy of excess billing and to refund the excess amount received with damages and such other reliefs.
- The complainants were getting the monthly water consumption bill from opposite party and the same has been remitted regularly. There was exorbitant amount of billing from Jan. 2017 and the same has been brought to the notice of opposite party. It was alleged, the opposite party failed to examine the water flow meter, evenafter payment of prescribed fee. Hence, the aggrieved complainants filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
- The opposite party submits the water consumption bill was prepared based on the actual reading in the water flow meter. The water meter has been examined by the concerned at the request of the complainant and confirmed that there is no defect in the meter. The delay in examination of the water flow meter was due to shortage of technical staff to attend to the complaints. As such, there is no deficiency in service and are not liable to pay any compensation as sought and hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
- Both parties lead evidence by filing their respective affidavits with documents. Complainants filed written arguments and oral submissions of both parties heard. Perused the material on record and posted for orders.
- The points arose for our consideration are:-
- Whether the complainants established the deficiency in service by opposite party, for issue of excess billing towards water consumption and for the delay in examination of the water flow meter, thereby they are entitled for the reliefs sought?
- To What order?
- Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 :- In the negative. Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following :: R E A S O N S :: - Point No.1:- The complainants were resided in the cause title address for the last 14-15 years and were the consumers of the water supply made by opposite party. Since from the beginning they were getting the water consumption bill for a sum of Rs.164/- per month. The water supply bill started increasing from the month of January 2017. The bill for a sum of Rs.1,250/- for the month of April 2017 has been paid. Surprised with the sudden increase in the water bill, a complaint has been lodged with opposite party. One of the opposite party’s staff belonged to water supply division, visited the residence and adviced the complainant to get disconnected the old water supply line. Accordingly, the complainant got disconnected the line. Still the opposite party got issued a bill for a sum of Rs.1,022/- for the month of May 2017 and the same has not been paid.
- The complainant by depositing Rs.100/- requested the opposite party authorities, to check the water flow meter for its correctness. The opposite party staff duly inspected the meter and found the same was correct. Hence, the aggrieved complainant alleged deficiency in service, filed the complaint and sought for the reliefs.
- The opposite party contended that, the water supply meter reader issued the bill based on the water flow meter reading. Hence, the opposite party has utilised the water for themselves and filed this false complaint to get refunded the amount paid towards water supply charges. There was no defects in the water flow meter. As such, the allegation of deficiency in service is denied as false and are not liable to pay any compensation to complainants. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
- On perusal of the water consumption/supply bills for the months January 2017 to June 2017, the complainants have made use of water to an extent of 32000 lts., and 40000 lts, 45000 lts, 96000 lts, 85000 lts and 60000 lts, respectively. Accordingly, the water supply bill for the said months have been issued by the opposite party. Since the water flow meter was in good working condition, the water meter reading and also the bills are correct. Therefore, the allegation of deficiency in service by opposite party is not justified and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the negative.
- Point No.2:- In view of the observations made in point No.1, we proceed to pass the following
:: O R D E R :: - The complaint is hereby dismissed.
- Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 19th January 2018) | |
