DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th day of August 2013 

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

            : Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,   Member

            :  Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member                 Date of Filing : 15/04/2013

 

Muhammed Haneefa,

S/o.Abdhul Razak,

President,

Nemmara Moideenpalli Trust,

Pallipadam, Nemmara                         -                  Complainant

(By Adv.C.P.Pramod)
 

        Vs 

1.Assistant Executive Engineer,

   Kerala Water Authority,

   Chittur

(By Adv.K.S.Stanly James)

 

2.Managing Director,

   Kerala Water Authority,

   Museum Junction,

 Thiruvananthapuram                         -                  Opposite parties

 

 

Order by Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

 

The complainant is the President of Nenmara  Moidheen Palli Trust and is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.350. Complainant used to pay the water charges without any default. Meanwhile complainant received a notice dated 10/04/2013 1^st opposite party demanding payment of additional bills with interest for an amount of Rs.91,018/-. Further opposite parties has demanded payment for the period 3/2005 to 8/2007, which itself is illegal. Opposite parties had also demanded to make payment in order to avoid disconnection. The complainant has not received any notice from opposite parties for paying additional bills. Moreover the opposite parties has not given notice dated 8/2/13 to replace the defective meter. The complainant has paid the water bills to the opposite party as per their demand. Also the complainant had paid the additional bill in the year 2009. At that time also the opposite parties had not demanded the additional bill of previous years. The opposite parties had not liable to demand the additional bills from 2005 to 2007. The bills from 2005 to 2007 was not come within the limitation period. The opposite parties had not stated the detailed calculation of additional bills on the notice. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to

1.    Cancel the notice sent by 1^st opposite party to complainant dated 10/04/2013 with a direction to not disconnect the water connection

2.    Pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.

Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. It is admitted that the complainant has availed the water connection from the 1^st opposite party on 14/10/86. The complainant had remitted Rs.127/- as the minimum water charge on each month. The opposite parties had taken the water reading and issued the additional bills as per the usage of water. The allegation of the complainant to pay the water charge on each month as per the demand of opposite parties was not correct. According to the complainant the bills No.(1)6247 dated 4/2006, (2)6717 dated 6/2006, (3)7495 dated 11/2006, (4) 9197 dated 10/2007 was not received. The opposite parties had received the water charges from 8 to 25 of every months to Nenmara Section Office. The opposite parties had issued memo dated 8/2/2013 to replace the defective meter. Thereafter the complainant came with a licensed plumber to the office on 2/3/13 to replace the meter. At that time the 1^st opposite party had verified the water bills and  issued detailed statements of additional bills for an amount of Rs.91,018/- including the monthly water charge from 11/12 to 3/13. Thereafter the complainant has paid Rs.812/- as the monthly water charge amount on 9/4/13 without paying the additional bills to the office of opposite party.

As per the order in I.A.140/2013 dated 16/04/2013 the complainant has sent demand draft for an amount of Rs.23,000/- to the 1^st opposite party. Hence the opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

Complainant filed affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant. Opposite parties had not filed their chief affidavit and documents. Heard the matter.

Issues to be considered are

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

2.    If so, what is the relief and cost ?

We perused relevant documents on record. Admittedly the complainant is the consumer of opposite parties and paid the water charges. The complainant filed I.A.264/13 for production of the details of meter readings, the water   charge paid by the complainant and the documents of consumer No.350 from the opposite parties. I.A.allowed. But the opposite parties has not produced documents. According to the opposite parties, the additional bills dated 4/2006, 6/2006, 11/2006 and 10/2007 issued to the complainant. But the opposite parties had not produced documentary evidence to prove the bills given to the complainant. Also the opposite party stated that they had issued notice dated 8/12/13 to replace the defective meter. But the opposite parties had not produced documentary evidence to show that the notice issued to the complainant. In Ext.A1 shown the payment schedule that complainant has paid more than Rs.127/- in installment. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite party. Moreover the opposite party has not examined the complainant. In Ext.A2 the complainant has paid Rs.812/- as water charges bill dated 9/4/13. Also in Ext.A3 complainant has paid Rs.2720/- to the opposite party dated 24/08/09. But the opposite party has not sent notice to further payment for that period. Normally the complainant has used the water in the mosque. Then there is the usage of water is increased or decreased. But the opposite party has not produced documentary evidence to prove that they had inspected the mosque and the meter reading taken during  the period as per the law. Section 13 of the Kerala Water Authority Regulations

(a)The water consumed at the premises of a consumer shall be assessed

at such intervals as decided by the Executive Engineer from time to time, based on meter readings taken from the meter fixed to the house connection at the premises of the consumer.

(b)The Authority may also fix the monthly rate of water charges of a     

consumer based on his average consumption of water for any previous    six months in the case of existing connections and based on the estimated consumption in the case of new connections and issue a provisional card in Form No.VIII indicating therein the amount of water charges payable by the consumer every month, the date of payment and the institution at which the amount is to be remitted. The charges so fixed shall be revised if the consumption of water at the premises of the consumer is found to have increased or decreased based on the observations of the meter readings taken in the subsequent six months to the last period. (Duplicate copy of Provisional Invoice Card / Meter Card or such records may be issued by the Authority for purposes of recording meter reading, billing and collection on request by the consumer, after charging a fee of Rs.10. Such duplicate copies shall be issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer concerned).

(c) The Authority may also introduce a slab system for collection of          

 water charges. The slab so fixed shall be revised if the consumption  of water at the premises of the consumer is found to have increased or decreased as the case may be, based on observations of the meter reading taken in the subsequent six months to the last period. The initial average rate for the first six months shall be fixed on the average consumption or metered average consumption of any six months preceding the date of coming into force of the slab system.

(d)If the water charges, as provided under clause (b) and (c) of this regulation, already remitted by the consumer is found to be in excess or short based on the meter readings taken subsequently, the consumer shall pay to the Authority  the amount short remitted and the Authority shall adjust the amount collected in excess from the consumer in the subsequent payments.  An adjustment bill in Form No.IX shall be issued once in every six months to the consumer indicating the excess or short remitted by the consumer.

 

But the opposite party has not acted as per the section 13 of the Kerala Water Authority Regulations. Moreover the period of water charge within 2 year is liable to collect the opposite party as per the Act. In Ext.A4 notice the opposite party has demanded the additional bill from 2005 to 2007. No documentary evidence produced by the opposite parties to prove their contentions.

In the result complaint allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to cancel the bill dated 10/4/2013 and pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Also we directed the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.23,000/- paid by the complainant as per the order in I.A.140/2013 to the complainant within 30 days.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.  

 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th  day of August 2013.   

   Sd/-

Seena H

President

Preetha G Nair

Member

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

 

 

 

 

Ext.A1 – Provision Invoice Card issued by PH Section, KWA, Nemmara for Rs.127

Ext.A2 – Receipt for Rs.812/- issued by opposite party

 

Ext.A3 – Receipt for Rs.2720/- issued by opposite party

 

Ext.A4 – Notice issued by opposite party to complainant.

 

Nil

 

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.