CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD
Dated this the 17th May, 2016
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER
: SRI. V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
Date of filing : 29/10/2014
CC /162/2014
Swaminathan.V,
S/o.Velayudha Naikar, 3/446,
Pudussery, Palakkad Taluk : Complainant
(By Adv.R.Manikandan)
Vs
Assistant Executive Engineer, : Opposite party
Kerala Water Authority,
P.H.Sub Division, Palakkad.
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The complaint is filed challenging the bill dated 07/08/2014 for an amount of Rs.27,285/- and demand notice dtd.14/10/2014 for an amount of Rs.10,000/- issued by opposite party. Complainant says that he is the consumer of opposite party bearing consumer No.8483768. He further states that since his water meter was defective opposite party issued bills according to their wish. He submitted an application for replacing a new meter, but the opposite party instead of installing a new meter issued a bill dtd.9/6/2014 for an amount of Rs.26,118/-. The complainant refused to pay the amount since he had filed an application on 23/12/2008 stating that his water meter is defective. In the meanwhile opposite party issued another bill dtd.07/08/2014 for an amount of Rs.27,285/-. Since the complainant refused to pay the amount opposite party disconnected the water connection on 18/8/2014. The complainant states that opposite party had issued the above bills without any basis and it is illegal. Even then he paid the amount as per the bill under protest by way of Demand Draft and filed an application for reconnection on 18/09/2014. But the water connection was not restored. On 14/10/2014 opposite party issued another bill for an amount of Rs.10,000/- for illegal consumption of water. The complainant states that all the above bills are unlawful and without any basis which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence he had approached before this forum for the refund of the amount of Rs.27,285/- paid as per the bill dtd.07/08/2014 along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and also for restoration of water connection.
Along with the complaint and interim application was filed by the complainant for restoration of water connection. Application was allowed and opposite party was directed to restore water connection within two days on receipt of 1/3rd of the amount stated in the demand notice dtd.14/10/2014 along with reconnection charges if any.
The notice was served to the opposite party but he remained absent. Hence opposite party was called absent and set exparte. The complainant filed chief affidavit along with supporting documents to prove his case. Ext.A1-A7 was marked from the part of the complainant. Later on 20/2/2015 opposite party filed application to set aside exparte order as IA 52/15. Complainant filed counter in the application IA was allowed on cost of Rs.750/- to the complainant. Opposite party submitted before the forum that the property was partitioned and the said connection is occupied by some other persons. Opposite party filed version after paying the cost. Opposite party contented that complainant is not a consumer of the alleged water connection of PSR/112/D number domestic water connection. The complainant is not a consumer in connection number 8483768 as stated in the complaint. The connection number PSR/112/D stands in the name of some other person and the complainant is not the owner of the said connection. Hence complainant is not having locus standi to file a complaint of this nature. The complainant is having another domestic connection in his name where he resides and he is consuming water under the said connection. Since the complainant is not a consumer under the said connection. Complainant has no legal right to file this complaint and it has to be dismissed on that ground alone. The allegation of the complainant is that opposite party issued a water bill for which he has not consumed is in correct. From 12/2008 to 6/2014 consumer NO.PSR/112/D has not remitted any amount towards water charge for the quantity of water consume. Hence water connection was disconnected on 25/5/2014. After that complainant remitted Rs.25,287/- by Demand draft towards arrears of water charge. The case of the complainant that the opposite party did not change the faulty water meter as requested by him is false. As per water supply Reg. Act 1991, faulty water meter is to be replaced by the consumer with the help of licensed plumber after informing and getting permission from the water authority officials. So far the complainant has not informed the opposite party that his meter was not working or he wants to replace it. The complainant has come up with a false allegations for the purpose of the case. During the period when water connection was disconnected in the month of August 2014, opposite party received a complaint that the complainant without the knowledge of the opposite party was taking water by using ¾ inch pipe. On the basis of the complaint officials of the opposite party inspected the site and found that the allegation in the complaint was true. On the basis of that report, water connection was disconnected and the complainant was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as fine for theft of water. Inorder to escape from that liability complainant has filed a false case before the Forum foisting false allegation against the opposite party. As alleged by the complainant even though meter reading was not taken regularly, complainant can very well approach the opposite party and remit the water charges regularly. The complainant can also inform the opposite party about non taking of water meter reading by the authority. Complainant was asked only to remit the water charges for the water he has already consumed. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay back the water charges already remitted by the complainant since it is only a part of amount which the complainant is liable to pay. There is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of opposite party. The complainant was consuming huge quantity of water without paying water charges regularly for the quantity of the water consumed. Opposite party has only demanded the complainant to remit the water charge for which he had consumed. Complainant, in order to avoid payment of water charges consumed by him had approached before this forum with false allegations against the opposite party. Hence the complaint has to be dismissed.
Complainant filed additional affidavit. Opposite party also filed their chief affidavit. Ext.B1-B3 was marked from the part of the Opposite party. Complainant filed application as IA 286/15 seeking permission to cross examine opposite party. No counter was filed in the application hence IA was allowed. Opposite party was present for cross examination but the complainant’s counsel sought adjournment. Opposite party filed application as IA 333/15 to cross examine complainant. Complainant was directed to appear before the Forum for cross examination. Complainant fail to appear before the Forum for cross examination. Complainant submitted that there is no necessity to cross examine opposite party. Hence evidence was closed.
Matter was heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite
party?
2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?
ISSUES 1 & 2
We had perused the documents as well as affidavits produced by the Forum. From Ext.A1 it is obvious that on 09/06/2014 opposite party had issued a bill to the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.26,118/-. In the said document the consumer number is shown as PSR/112/D and was issued in the name of complainant herein. Hence the opposite party cannot content for a position that the complainant is not a consumer of PSR/112/D number domestic water connection. According to the opposite party the consumer number PSR/112/D has not remitted any amount towards water charge from 12/2008 to 6/2014 for the quantity of water consumed. Hence water connection was disconnected on 25/7/2014. After that the complainant remitted Rs.27,285/- by demand draft towards arrears of water charge which is evident from Ext.A4. According to the opposite party the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party issued a water bill for which he has not consumed is incorrect. The opposite party had produced consumer ledger extract which was marked as Ext.B1 to prove that the complainant had arrears from 12/2008 to 6/2014. Ext.B1 clearly shows that the quantity of water consumed by the complainant, the amount paid by the complainant and the balance amount to be paid by the complainant. The complainant was asked only to remit the water charges for the water he has already consumed. The complainant had not produced any evidence to the effect that he had paid any amount towards water charges during that period. The complainant had alleged that the opposite party did not change the faulty water meter as requested by him. As per water supply Reg. Act 1991, faulty water meter is to be replaced by the consumer with the help of licensed plumber after informing and getting permission from the water authority officials. So far the complainant has not informed the opposite party that his meter was not working or he wants to replace it. It is only for the first time the complainant has come up with this allegation., Moreover the opposite party had produced Ext.B2 which was a complaint received from 3rd party to show that when water connection was disconnected the complainant without the knowledge of the opposite party was taking water by using ¾ inch pipe. On the basis of that they had inspected the site and had imposed Rs.10,000/- as fine for the theft of water. In order to escape from that liability complainant has come up with a false case. Even if the meter reading was not taken regularly complainant can very well approach the opposite party and remit water charges and can also inform them about non taking of water meter reading by the authorities. From Ext.B1 it is clear that the complainant was asked only to remit the water charges for the water he had already used. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay back the water charges already remitted by the complainant. Since it is only a part of amount which the complainant is liable to pay.
In the above circumstance we cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence complaint is dismissed without costs.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 17th day of May, 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/- Suma. K.P
Member
Sd/-
V.P. Anantha Narayanan
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- KWA Bill for Rs.26,118/- dtd.09/06/2014 in the name of complainant.
Ext.A2- Application of complainant for Adalath dtd.23/12/2008
Ext.A3 - KWA Bill for Rs.27,285/- dtd.07/08/2014 in the name of complainant.
Ext.A4- Photocopy of Punjab National Bank D.D. Rs.27,285/- dtd.18/09/2014 .
Ext.A5- Letter to the Asst.Executive Engineer, KWA, Palakkad dtd.18/09/2014 and postal receipt and ack. Card.
Ext.A6- Original Letter of KWA dtd.14/10/2014 to the complainant, filing the case for illegal use of water.
Ext.A7-Receipt of Rs.3,300/- KWA, Palakkad dtd.01/11/2014
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1- True copy of consumer ledger
Ext.B2-True copy of letter not mentioned name
Ext.B3-Copy of letter dtd.03/09/2014
Witness marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost Allowed
No cost allowed
