BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.NO. 294/2002 filed on 11..07..2002<br /> Dated: 30..09..2008<br /> <br /> Complainant:<br /> K. Jayachandran, T.C.31/684, Kanjiravilakam, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> <br /> 1. The Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Managing Director.<br /> 2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Central Sub Division, Pattoor, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By Adv. Sri. C. Sasidharan Pillai)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 27..02..2004 the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on16..08..2008, the Forum on 30.09..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:<br /> The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties with consumer No.PT 2621 prior to the year 1992. The complainant was periodically remitting the water charges as per the then prevailing rates determined by the opposite parties from time to time till February 1992. No invoice card have ever been given to the complainant since 1992 in view of the requests from the complainant to disconnect the supply during February 1992 itself. Complainant had lastly remitted a payment of Rs.55/- for the period from 10/91 to 02/92 on 10..02..1992. Even without water the meter was running, which was defective. No water was made available to the complainant. Opposite parties did not take any steps to supply water to meet requirements of the complainant. Hence complainant dug and constructed a well in his premises and installed a monoblock pump to lift water from the well for the use of the complainant on 07..02..1992. Complainant had asked the 2nd opposite party to disconnect the water supply on 10..02..1992 itself. But opposite parties did not disconnect the line. No bill was served subsequently in view of disconnection request. Surprisingly, complainant received a cut off notice dated 24..07..1997 for an amount of Rs. 4,349/- stating that the supply water will be cut off within 7 days. Opposite parties did not disconnect the line. Thereater complainant received another notice on 12..06..2002 for an amount of Rs. 9,310/- probably towards water charges. The notice is arbitrary a second thought and high handedness. The latest notice was issued after an unreasonable period and the failure to disconnect the supply inspite of the repeated requests. At last complainant requested in writing to opposite parties on 26..06..2002 to call back the bill. Thereupon a Meter Inspector was deputed, who inspected the premises of the complainant and convinced regarding the non-supply of water to the premises and existence of well and pump system as claimed by the complainant. Opposite parties are not entitled to claim any amount by way of arrears. Hence this complaint to absolve the complainant from paying any dues referred in the cut off notices, to award compensation and costs.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Para No.1 of the complaint is correct. The consumer is charged as per the readings on the meter. If the meter is not working, the consumer is charged at the last working average. The consumer is bound to pay the charges upto the date of disconnection. The consumer has cleared the dues upto 10/91 only. The meter of the consumer is not working. No request is seen made for disconnection as per records of the office. Cut off notices were served on 24..07..1997 and on 12..06..2002. For effecting disconnection the consumer has to pay the disconnection fee. The consumer is charged for an average consumption of 31kl. It is admitted that the flow of water to the premises is less, but as the meter is not working, the consumer has to pay at the previous charge. Opposite parties had acted only as per the rules in force. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3.The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> (i)Whether the complainant is liable for the amount as per notices dated 24..07..1997 and 12..06..2002?<br /> (ii)Whether there has been negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> (iii)Reliefs and Cost?<br /> <br /> 4. To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and marked Exts.P1 to P6. To support the contention in the version, 2nd opposite party has filed an affidavit of himself as DW1 in lieu of chief examination. Opposite parties did not produce any documents.<br /> <br /> 5. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly complainant is a consumer of opposite parties with consumer No.PT 2621. It has been the case of the complainant that he was the user of water supply prior to the year 1992 and was periodically remitting the water charge as per the then prevailing rates from time to time till Feruary, 2002. Ext.P1 is the copy of the receipt dated 10..02..1992 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant. As per Ext.P1 opposite parties received Rs.55/- from the complainant on account of water and meter hire charge for the period 10/91 to 2/92. Submission by the complainant is that no revised invoice cards have ever been issued to the complainant since 1992 in view of the request from the complainant to disconnect the supply during February 1992 itself and that even without water the meter was running defectively. The main grievance of the complainant was that no water was made available to him and that there was no flow of water but only dripping and that complainant constructed a well and installed a monoblock pump to lift water from the well for the use on 07..02..1992. Ext.P2 is the copy of the bill dated 07..02..1992 for purchase of the said pump. It has been submitted that complainant had asked the opposite parties to disconnect the water supply on 10th February 1992. As per 9(d) of the Kerala Water Authority (Water supply) Regulations whenever the owner or occupier desires to have his house connection disconnected permanently, he shall apply in Form No.RA4 to the Assistant Executive Engineer through a licensed plumber along with an application fee of Rs.15/- and disconnection fee of Rs.50/-. The owner or occupier shall also remit all sums due to the Authority on account of water charges, meter hire, meter service charges and penalties if any before applying for permanent disconnection. Complainant did not furnish any material regarding the request for disconnection as stipulated under 9(d) of the Regulation. Submission by the complainant is that no bill was served subsequently in view of disconnection request. Opposite parties did not furnish any material to prove otherwise. Complainant further submitted that a cut off notice dated 24..07..1997 was served for an amount of Rs.4,349/-. Ext.P3 is the copy of the said cut off notice. As per Ext.P3 it is stated that the water supply will be cut off within 7 days. Ext.P4 is another cut off notice dated 12..06..2002 wherein opposite partied claims an amount of Rs.9,310/-. It is pertinent to point out that there is no pleading on the part of opposite parties that complainant is a defaulter, nor did opposite parties issue any bill for water charges prior to the cut off notices. Further, as per Ext.P3, the water supply will be cut off within 7 days from 24..07.1997. No action was seen taken by opposite parties as per Ext.P3, Ext.P4 cut off notice is seen issued after an unreasonable period and the failure to disconnect the supply inspite of request for disconnection. The reason for issuing Ext.P4 cut off notice is not stated in the version. Ext.P5 is the copy of the letter addressed to opposite parties by the complainant. In the said letter, it is seen stated by the complainant that he had constructed well in the year 1991 and installed pumpset in the year 1992 to lift water for his use and the water meter was defective years ago and sent letters repeatedly demanding the disconnection of water and no action was taken by opposite parties.......etc.. After Ext.P5 request in writing, complainant submitted that Meter Inspector was deputed for report. Ext.P6 is the copy of the Report prepared and submitted by the Meter Inspector. As per Ext.P6 report, while inspected the water tap there was no flow of water but only dripping, and there was existence of well and pump system as claimed by the complainant. In view of the submission by the complainant that there was no flow of water but only dripping in 1991 and subsequent construction of well and installation of pump set to lift water for complainant's use in 1992 as seen corroborated by Ext.P2 and P6, and issuance of cut off notices in the year 1997 and 2002 without issuing any invoice bills for water charges since 1992 and non-production of any documents by opposie parties to substantiate the reason for claiming the alleged amounts as per Ext.P3 & P4, we hold the complaint is genuine and complainant is not liable for the amounts claimed by opposite parties as per Ext.P3 & P4. Though there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties we do not allow any compensation in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.<br /> <br /> In the result, complaint is allowed in part. Complainant is not liable for the amounts as per cut off notices dated 24..07..1997 and 12..06..2002 issued by opposite parties. There will be no compensation and cost in facts and circumstance of the case. Opposite parties shall disconnect the connection on receiving application in Form No.RA4 with an application fee of Rs.15 and disconnection fee of Rs.50/- only from the complainant.<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of September, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> ad.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 294/2002<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I.Complainant's witness: NIL<br /> II.Complainant's documents:<br /> <br /> P1 : Photocopy of acknowledgement for +receipt of money dated 10.02.1992 <br /> P2 : Photocopy of receipt dated 07.02.1992 P3 Photocopy of cut off notice dated 24.07.1997.<br /> P4 Photocopy of notice dated 12.06.2002 of Con.No.PT.2621<br /> P5 Photocopy of letter dated 26.06.2002 issued by the complainant.<br /> P6 Photocopy of inspection report. <br /> III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL<br /> <br /> IV.Opposite parties documents: NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> ad.