KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 155/2016
JUDGMENT DATED: 23.07.2019
(Against the Order in C.C. 229/2010 of CDRF, Thrissur)
PRESENT :
SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
E.F. Jose, Edathuruthiyil House, ‘Sindhooram’, Greenpark, Shornur Road, Thiruvambady Post, Thrissur-680 022.
(By Adv. Unnikrishnan. V)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- The Assistant Engineer, Water Works Section No. 2, Kerala Water Authority, Thrissur.
- Kerala Water Authority, represented by Managing Director, Jala Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.
JUDGMENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
The appellant is the complainant in C.C. No. 229/2010 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur. The respondents are the opposite parties. The District Forum dismissed the complaint and against that order complainant filed this appeal.
2. The case of the complainant is that he is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. 6413 using limited quantity of water for domestic purpose. The opposite parties issued a bill for Rs. 5,597/- on 24.07.2009 for the period 10/08 to 02/09. It was paid by the complainant. Again the opposite parties issued a bill for Rs. 34,185/- dated 29.01.2010. The bill is for a period of five months only. The opposite parties threatened disconnection of water supply and the complaint was filed before the forum. The opposite parties filed version denying the averments in the complaint holding that there was no deficiency in their service and the complaint be dismissed. The complainant filed Exts. P1 to P5 and the opposite parties filed Ext. R1. The complainant was examined as PW1 and one Thara Bai was examined as RW1 from the side of the opposite parties. The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant was liable to pay the bill in question and that the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. Aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant preferred this appeal.
3. The finding of the District Forum is that as per Ext. P2 the average consumption per month is 305.8 KL and it was proved by Ext. R1. Ext. R1 is the ledger copy of meter reading. Ext. P1 is the provisional invoice card which shows the periodical payment of the complainant. As per Ext. P1 he had not paid any amount periodically. He had only paid the amount after issuing the bill, which was paid after allowing the instalments. So the District Forum found that the complainant has not paid any amount till the issuance of the bill. So he is liable to pay the bill amount as per Ext. P1. This was the reason for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. We have gone through the entire documents produced by both the parties. Ext. P1 is the demand and disconnection notice, not the provisional invoice card. The District Forum marked the bill No. 9845 as Ext. P2 and the copy of the same document also marked as Ext. P1 and the provisional invoice card also marked as Ext. P1. The case of the complainant was to cancel the Ext. P1 bill. As per this document the complainant has to pay Rs. 34,185/-. As per Ext. R1 produced by the opposite parties Ext. P1 bill issued for the payment of the period 03/09 to 07/09 and the bill date is 29.01.2010. But in their version they stated that Ext. P1 is issued for the period of 04/08 to 02/09 is not correct. As per Ext. R1 the opposite parties issued bill No. 5299 dated 01.06.2010 for an amount of Rs. 6,370/- for the period 08/09 to 05/10. In this case the complainant has questioned Ext. P1 bill for an amount of Rs. 34,185/- for the period 03/09 to 07/09 for five months. Bill No. 5299 is for the consumption of 10 months for the period from 08/09 to 05/10. Ext. P3 bill is for the period of 5 months from 10/08 to 02/09. From the above mentioned discussion we find that before and after the disputed bill the average rate of consumption is about Rs. 700/- per month.
5. The finding of the District Forum is not clear. The marking of documents by the District Forum is also not proper. The District forum mentioned that as per Ext. P1 the bill amount is Rs. 3,000/- that is not correct. As per Ext. P1 the bill amount is Rs. 34,185/-. The dismissal of the complaint is not on genuine ground. From the above mentioned reasons we find that it is reasonable to direct the complainant to pay Rs. 700 x 5 = Rs. 3500/- for the consumption of water for the period from 03/09 to 07/09.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. We direct the respondents/opposite parties to cancel the Ext. P1 bill dated 29.01.2010 of Rs. 34,185/- and issue a fresh bill for Rs. 3,500/- for the period from 03/09 to 07/09.
T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
