BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 1st day of June 2018
Filed on : 11/09/2015
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.613/2015
Between
K.V. Bhaskaran Nair, : Complainant
Sreenilayam, Muppathadam P.O., (By Adv. Jinoy Thankachan,
Aluva-683 110, Law Associates, Advocates & Notary,
Kadungalloor Panchayat, Tripunithaura-682 301)
Kadungalloor Village,
Parur Taluk, Ernakulam.
And
Asst. Executive Engineer, : Opposite party
Kerala Water Authority, (party-in-person)
Water Supply Sub Division,
North Paravur,
Ernakulam-683 513.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Complainant's case
The complainant, a senior citizen, aged 68 years had approached this Forum with a complaint against the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, North Paravur alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in respect of the water connection provided to him in House No. 355/XI of North Paravur, Water supply, sub division. The complainant alleges that he has a history on payment of water bills till the end of 2013. Up to 14-08-2013 water bill was paid by him and the meter reading as on that date was 924. Thereafter, he was provided with another bill on 22-04-2014 recording the meter reading as 3463 and demanding an amount of Rs. 48,591/- as water charges. The complainant approached the concerned office regarding the exorbitant bill provided to him. The opposite party had informed the complainant orally to change the meter without even checking the meter for its reading. Thereafter the supply was disconnected disconnected and the meter was taken away by an officer of the opposite party at that time the meter reading was only 1478 KL. No employee of the opposite party had taken the meter reading for a long period and the opposite party had made an assessment and emergency bill was provided to the complainant against the actual, despite immediate complaint before the local office given by the complainant no action was taken. Therefore, the complainant had given another complaint before the Chief Engineer. Following the said complaint the complainant was threatened by Revenue Recovery notice to recover the unauthorized payment in the water bill. Hence the complainant seeking a direction to be given to the opposite party to issue a proper bill to the complainant ignoring the unauthorized bill issued to the complainant hitherto. It is also prayed that the Revenue Recovery Proceedings is to be directed to be withdrawn and to reconnect the already disconnected water connection. The complainant also seeks Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for the unauthorized disconnection of the water through this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party, who appeared and contested the matter by filing a version contending inter-alia as follows:
3. The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is a consumer under the opposite party with Consumer No. KGR/1282/D. It is incorrect to say that the complainant was regular in paying the water charges till 2013. He was only paying the water charges till 2013. He was only paying the minimum charge as per the provisional invoice and he is liable to pay the difference of water charges as per the adjustment bill issued. The complainant was paying from 2001 on wards. The complainant was paying Rs. 296/- in 2004. Rs. 252 in 2005, Rs. 252 in 2006, 264 in 2008 and 290 in 2008 December and 554 during December 2009 and Rs. 539 during 2010. He was also paying Rs. 554 in 2011 and Rs. 539 in 2012. He also paid Rs. 534 on 14-08-2013. Therefore the total amount paid was only Rs. 4,074/-. During the period 2004 to 2013 as against the actual payment which was demanded as per the bill under challenge. The actual amounts to be paid by the complainant from 2008 to 20 are as follows. Rs. 328/- from 12/2008 to 4/2009, Rs. 116/- from 4/2009 to 6/2009, 20,750/- from 6/2009 till 4/2010, Rs. 9,740/- from 6/2010 till 8/2010, Rs. 4,810/- from 8/2010 till 10/2010, Rs. 118 from 10/2010 till 2/2010. The amount for the period 12/2010 to 2/2011 was Rs. 214 and it was Rs. 316/- during 2/2011 and 4/2011. The total amount therefore due to the opposite party from the complainant is Rs. 45,595/-. As on August 2015 the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 46,695/- and as the complainant did not pay the amount, the opposite party had issued a notice on 17-08-2015 demanding Rs. 46,695/-. However, the complainant did not pay the said amount. The last replacement of the water meter was in the year 2007 I.e.on 06-03-2007 with an opening meter reading of 1 K.L. The last meter reading was taken on 10-12-2014 and the reading was 3478 kl. It was reported by the meter inspector that the time of disconnection on 24-03-2015 . The glass of the water meter was broken and it was broken deliberately by the complainant in order to make the reading reverse. This could be seen from the statement of the complainant that at the time of disconnection the meter reading was 1478 KL and took the photograph of the meter reading also. The disconnection was made on 24-03-2015. The meter reading as on 23-04-2010 was 1545 and it gradually increased on 3478 KL as on 10-12-2014. The complainant had put digit but in the place of digit 3 to make it appear that the reading as on 24-03-2015 as only 1478. Therefore the complainant is liable to be proceeded with, for tampering the water meter. The complainant had approached the Forum without clean hands and hence he is not entitled to get any of the reliefs. There is no deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint. The complaint is therefore sought to be dismissed.
4. On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for consideration.
Whether the complainant had proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
Is the complainant is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
iii. Reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the PW1 and Exbts. A1 to A12 documents on the side of the complainant and Exbts. B1 and B2 on the side of the opposite party without any oral evidence.
6. Issue No. i. The complainant had produced 12 documents in support of his complaint. Exbt. A1 is the receipt dated 14-12-2009 towards the water charges. Exbt. A2 dated 14-09-2010 is another receipt for the payment of water charges from January to December 2010 at Rs. 504.35 paise. Exb.A3 is another bill dated 14-11-2011 for an amount of Rs. 554/- towards the payment up to 2011. Exbt. A4 is receipt for payment of Rs. 539/- up to December 2012, and that bill was issued on 14-09-2012. Exbt. A5 is the receipt for Rs. 534/- paid on 14-08-2013 towards the water bill up to 12/2013. Exbt. A6 is the bill under challenge which was issued on 22-04-2014 showing a meter reading of 3463. It is shown in Exbt. A6 that meter reading as on 20-09-2013 was 924. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the previous meter reading was recorded as 924 as on 20-09-2013 is a fabricated one. Both these readings are seen written in pen and the remaining entries in the bill are seen generated by computer. In the computer generated bill, the average bimonthly consumption is shown as 53 Kl. If that is so, the difference between the meter reading on 22-04-2014 and 20-09-2013 should have been 371 (53 KLx 7months). But the difference between the 2 documents is found to be 2361 as per the hand written readings, we failed to understand as to why the readings shown in Exbt. A6 alone are written by pen and the remaining colums are filled by computer generated figures. The complainant did not produce the original of Exbt. A6 bill which is under challenge. In deciding the case of this nature especially when the opposite party had alleged fraudulent act on the part of the complainant in respect of the documents referred to, the complainant aught to have produced the original bill which must have been available with the complainant. However, the complainant chose to produce only a photo copy of Exbt. A6, which is not even certified as a true copy. In the above circumstance, we find that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and with open mind. We therefore found the issue against the complainant.
7. Issue No.ii. Having found issue No. i against the complainant, we are not inclined to consider and decide the 2nd issue.
8. Issue No. iii. In the above circumstance, the complaint stands dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 1st day of June 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of receipt dt. 19-12-2009
A2 : Copy of receipt dt. 14-09-2010
A3 : Copy of receipt dt. 14-11-2011
A4 : Copy of receipt dt. 14-09-2012
A5 : Copy of receipt dt. 14-08-2013
A6 : Copy of disconnection notice
dt. 22-04-2014
A7 : Copy of water meter
A8 : Copy of water meter
A9 : Copy of letter dt. 08-07-2015
A10 : Copy of letter dt. 17-07-2015
A11 : Copy of demand and
disconnection notice
dt. 07-10-2014
A12 : Copy of letter dt. 28-05-2015
Opposite party's exhibits:
Exbt. B1 : Copy of arrears statement
B2 : Copy of letter
Depositions
PW1 : K.V. Balakrishnan Nair,
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
