Kerala

Kottayam

CC/09/2

K.Chandran Pillai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assis.exicutive.engineer - Opp.Party(s)

Rajeev. P.Nair

29 May 2010

ORDER


KottayamConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Civil Station, Kottayam
CONSUMER CASE NO. 09 of 2
1. K.Chandran PillaiPratheesha House,Karapuzha, ktm ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Assis.exicutive.engineerKerala Water Athority, ktm2. Deputy Thahasildar (RR)Kottayam ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 29 May 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

O R D E R
 
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath, P., President.
 
Case of the petitioner filed on 19..12..2008 is as follows:
Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party with vide consumer No. KU/XXV/243.  Water connection of the petitioner  is for domestic purposes.    According to the petitioner he is not regularly getting supply of  water but  he   regularly   paying the fixed water  charges. On 18..3..2008 first opposite party served a demand notice to the petitioner directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 24683/- towards arrears up to 2/05. Petitioner approached the opposite party stating that he is not liable to pay   any amount. According to the petitioner  demand of the opposite party is without any basis and is a clear deficiency in
 
-2-
 service. So,   petitioner prays for an order canceling demand notice Dtd: 11..3..2008 and 10..3..2008 for an amount of Rs. 24683/-. Petitioner claims Rs. 1000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
First opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party there is an agreement between the petitioner and opposite party while taking water connection. Petitioner is bound to  obey  those terms of the agreement. Petitioner had  failed to remit monthly water charges from 3/98 onwards. Connection was disconnected on 28..2..2005 for non payment of water charges for Rs. 24,683/- up to 28..2..2005 . Demand notice was served as per rules to recover the arrear amount.  According to the opposite party bill is issued as per rules and   there is no deficiency in service on their part. So, opposite party prays for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i)                    Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii)                   Relief and costs.
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner.
Point No. 1
            Crux of the case of the petitioner is that bill issued to the petitioner dtd:
 
-3-
18..3..2008 for an amount of Rs. 24,683/- is without any basis and is to be cancelled. Petitioner produced disputed bill dtd:  18..3..2008 said document is marked as Ext. A2. Opposite party contented that the bill is issued legally as per rules for recovering the dues up to 28..2..2005. Even though the opposite party in the affidavit averred that copy of the consumer ledger is produced they have not produced the consumer ledger.    . Regulation 13 Kerala Water Authority (Water supply) regulation 1991, stipulates the way in which provisional invoice card and the mode of assessment.   It is  also stipulated that the meter reading are to be taken at an interval of  six months and based on average consumption professional invoice card and additional bills are to be issued to the consumer. In the  present case opposite party / Kerala Water Authority has not produced any document   to show that they follows provisions of regulation 13 of the Kerala Water Authority regulation 1991. In our view the aforesaid omission   amounts to   deficiency in service. Complainant/ consumer will be trouble by demanding  arrears of water charges for a long period. It is the duty of the opposite party to see that additional bills are issued without much delay. Further more opposite party is not entitled to get any penal charges on the actual amount due as arrears of water charges.  
Point No. 2
In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed in part. Bill issued by the opposite party Dtd: 18..3..2008 and subsequently  dtd: 17..10..2008 is
 
-4-
cancelled. opposite party will be at liberty to issue arrear bill for the excess water actually consumed  by the petitioner without demanding  any penal interest or penal charges. There will be no order as to cost. Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of this order.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 19th   day of June, 2010.
 
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-      
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-    
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-    
APPENDIX
Documents of the Petitioner  
Ext. A1:            Consumer meter card of the petitioner
Ext. A2:            Notice Dtd: 18..3..2008
Ext. A3:            Notice Dtd: 17..10..2008.
 
 
 
By Order,
 
 
Senior Superintendent.

HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, MemberHONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT ,