BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 254/2001

Dated : 15.06.2009

Complainant:

Subhadramma, Hari Bhavan, Near V.M. Mills, Thirumala P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. S. Rajasekharan Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Karamana Section, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Divisional Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. C. Sasidharan Pillai)

This O.P having been heard on 15.05.2009, the Forum on 15.06.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

The facts of the complaint are as follows: The complainant who is a consumer of the opposite parties with consumer No. KMA 2056, has been remitting the water charges in advance and the water charge was fixed as Rs. 37/- per month by the opposite party. But on 16.11.2000, the opposite parties issued a bill to the complainant for an amount of Rs. 518/- as arrears of water charges. When the complainant approached the concerned authority, as there was no amount due to the opposite party, the opposite parties corrected the said bill and was corrected as Rs. 22,962/- from Rs. 518/-. The said bill was issued by the opposite parties without proper verification and assessment and hence this complaint for a direction to withdraw the bill along with cost.

The opposite parties have filed their version contending as follows: During the date of connection the complainant's monthly water charge was fixed for only 15 KL and she is remitting the charge for 15 KL. An arrear bill issued on 16.11.2000 for Rs. 518/- was only for 15 KL. But on further verification the arrear comes to Rs. 22,963/-. When the complainant approached the concerned staff, further verification had done and found that opposite parties had omitted two meter readings. The opposite parties had revised the arrear as per the readings and the arrear comes to Rs. 22,963/-, which was informed to the complainant. The additional bill issued to the complainant is as per the readings. The meter was not in working condition due to damage caused to it by the complainant. So the opposite parties were not able to take further readings and the opposite parties had informed the complainant at that time itself. But the complainant did not take any care. Government had enhanced the water charge periodically, according to the enhancement, charge for 15 KL also varies from each enhancement. Hence pray for dismissal of the complaint.

This case was once finally heard and disposed against which the opposite parties preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Accordingly, the order passed by the Forum was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law with liberty to the opposite parties to adduce further evidence.

The opposite parties had no further evidence and they have not filed their affidavit either. No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

The complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P3 in support of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the act of the opposite parties in issuing the bill for Rs. 22,963/- justifiable?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

3. Reliefs and costs.

Points (i) to (iii):- The complainant has pleaded that she has been remitting the monthly water charges in advance for 15 KL water per month and there is no dues from the complainant to the opposite parties. As per Ext. P1 it can be seen that complainant has made an advance payment of Rs. 423/- on 08.06.2000 for a period of 6/00 to 05/01. The contention of the opposite parties are that the said amount has been remitted by the complainant for a fixed water charge for only 15 KL and that Government had enhanced water charge periodically and accordingly the enhancement charge for 15 KL also varies. But the opposite parties have not produced any document to support their contention. The opposite parties have furnished the following details in their version.

But they have not produced any authentic records to corroborate the same. They have contended that as on 17.07.1998 the meter is damaged. As per Ext. P2 it can be seen that the status of the meter as 'not working'. The opposite parties contend that the complainant has not taken any steps to cure the same. The complainant has affirmed in the sworn statement filed by her that the contention regarding the meter as not working is baseless and has been raised by the opposite parties to evade from their liability. The opposite parties have not controverted the same and hence it stands unchallenged.

The Hon'ble State Commission in the remand order has opined that the opposite parties failed to give reasonable explanation or calculation as to how they arrived at the amount of Rs. 22,963/-. Though ample opportunities were given to the opposite parties for further evidence they did not produce any documents or adduce any evidence in support of their contentions. Considering the above referred discussions and the records on file, we hereby quash Ext. P2 bill. Furthermore the Hon'ble State Commission has found that the Forum cannot be justified in awarding compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for the issuance of Ext. P2 bill demanding Rs. 22,963/-. In the above circumstance we find that the complainant is not entitled for any compensation and costs.

In the result, the Ext. P2 bill is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to instal a new meter and on the basis of the average readings for the 3 future months consecutively, fix the new rate of consumption and charge the future consumption of the complainant. There will be no reassessment for the period covered by Ext. P2. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to compensation and costs. Time for compliance two months from the date of receipt of the order failing which execution can be taken.

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.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of June 2009.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

O.P. No. 254/2001

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Receipt issued by KWA dated 08.06.2000 for Rs. 423/-.

P2 - Consumer Bill issued by KWA.

P3 - Consumer's Meter Card issued by KWA.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT