BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 517/2002 Filed on 5/12/2002 Dated: 15..06..2009
Complainant: Emmanuel Chathenchira, Advocate, T.C.20/265, MRA.2, Melarannoor, Karamana-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 002. (By Adv. Elizabeth Emmanuel)
Opposite parties:
The Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Poojappura Section V., Karamana-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 2. The Managing Director, P.H.(South), Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. C. Sasidharan Pillai)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 26..12..2003, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..04..2009, the Forum on 15..06..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is the occupant of the premises having water connection bearing No.KMA.786 and the said consumer No.stands in the name of late Sri. P. Somasekharan Thampi, that complainant has been remitting the water charges from 1997 under slab system, that the complainant is not a defaulter, that the slab system introduced by the opposite parties increased from Rs.19/- to Rs.26/- per month, that the water meter is not in working condition from 1997 till date, and that opposite parties did not replace the faulty meter with new one. When the complainant approached the 1st opposite party to remit water charges for the year 2001-2002, the 1st opposite party simply demanded to remit an amount of Rs.2,898/- as arrears noted in a piece of paper without any authentication by the competent officer of Kerala Water Authority. The complainant sent a petition dated 25/7/2002 to the 1st opposite party, though the same was received by the 1st opposite party and not replied so far. The complainant's family is a small family. The opposite parties contention of over usage of water is false and misleading. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties for accepting water charges @ Rs.26/- per month from 4/2001 till date and to pay compensation to the complainant.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the consumer is a defaulter since 2001, that he had remitted water charges upto 3/2001 for only 10kl whereas the actual consumption was always above that. The water meter is not in a working condition, that the meter replacement will be done only if all the water charge arrears are cleared and sound water meter is produced by the consumer for replacement, which had not been adhered to. Due to the lack of consumer bill, the arrear was noted in a piece of paper. The arrear was strictly calculated as per the meter readings in support of Kerala Water Authority's existing rules. The water charges were assessed based on the actual consumption from the working meter as per the prevailing rates. There is no illegal, ill-motivated and malafide attitude on the part of opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is liable to remit arrears of Rs.2,898/-? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Reliefs and Costs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. In rebuttal, 1st opposite party has filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not file any documents. 5. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, complainant is the occupant of the premises having water connection bearing KMA 786 and the said consumer number stands in the name of late P.Somasekharan Thampi. It has been the case of the complainant that he has been remitting the water charges from 1997 under slab system, that he is not a defaulter, that the slab system introduced by the opposite parties increased from Rs.19/- to Rs.26/- per month, that water meter is not in working condition from 1997 till date, and that opposite parties did not replace the faulty meter with new one. It has also been the case of the complainant that when he approached the 1st opposite party to remit water charges for the year 2001-2002, the 1st opposite party simply demanded to remit an amount of Rs.2,898/- as arrears noted in a piece of paper (Ext.P1) without any authentication by the competent officer of Kerala Water Authority. Submission by the opposite parties is that due to lack of consumer bill at that time, the arrears was noted in a piece of paper. Ext.P2 is the copy of the letter dated 25/7/2002 addressed to the 1st opposite party requesting for a detailed statement of account. Ext.P3 is the copy of the postal receipt dated 25/7/2002, Ext.P4 is the copy of the acknowledgment card. Though 1st opposite party received the Ext.P2 letter requesting for detailed statement of account, 1st opposite party did not send any reply to Ext.P2 nor did 1st opposite party send statement of account to the complainant. Ext.P5 is the copy of another letter dated 17/9/2002 addressed to the Chief Engineer, KWA requesting him to issue a realistic bill, after deducting the payments already made in accordance with the provisions of the slab system. Exts.P6 & P7 are the copy of postal receipts and acknowledgment card. Ext.P8 is the copy of the receipt dated 24/3/2003 for Rs.650/- issued by the opposite parties. Submission by the complainant is that the amount of Rs.650/- as per Ext.P8 is seen remitted as per the order dated 4/2/2003 of this Forum when the complainant moved a petition before this Forum for giving direction to the opposite parties not to disconnect the water connection. It is pertinent to note that even after receiving Ext.P2 letter by the 1st opposite party and Ext.P5 letter by the Chief Engineer, KWA, neither reply nor statement of account is seen sent to the complainant. Opposite parties admits that the water meter is not in a working condition, but submits that the arrear amount has been calculated strictly as per the meter readings. Opposite parties' statement itself is full of paradox and ambiguity. It is to be noted that the arrear amount is seen mentioned in a piece of paper without authentication. No copy of the printed bill is furnished by the opposite parties to prove the authenticity of Ext.P1. The onus of proving the authenticity of Ext.P1 is upon the opposite parties. Opposite parties did not prove it. Moreover, opposite parties have not acted as per Provision 13 of the Water Supply Regulations. No adjustment bill is seen issued by the opposite parties to the consumer indicating the excess or short remitted by the consumer. In the absence any cogent and clinching evidence on the part of opposite parties in support of Ext.P1 demand for Rs.2,898/-, we hold that the said demand is unilateral and against facts and hence we hereby quash Ext.P1 demand. 6. In view of the above, we find complainant is not liable to remit the said amount as per Ext.P1 demand. In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Ext.P1 demand issued by 1st opposite party is hereby quashed. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Parties shall bear and suffer their costs. 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 15th day of June, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad. O.P.No.517/2002 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness : NIL II. Complainant'sa documents: P1 : Copy of meter reading from 10/7/95 to 17/11/2001 P2 : Copy of Regd. Letter dated 25/7/2002 issued to the opposite parties by complainant. P3 : Copy of postal receipt dated 25/7/2002 P4 : Copy of first page of acknowledgement card dated 26/7/02 P4(a) Copy of second page of " P5 : Copy of letter dated 17/9/2002 addressed to opposite party by complainant. P6 : Copy of postal receipt dated 18/9/2002 P7 : Copy of postal acknowledgement card P8 : Copy of receipt dated 24/3/2003 of con.No.KWA/786/D for Rs.650/-.
III. Opposite parties' witnes : NIL
IV. Opposite parties documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
ad. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 517/2002 Filed on 5/12/2002 Dated: 15..06..2009
Complainant: Emmanuel Chathenchira, Advocate, T.C.20/265, MRA.2, Melarannoor, Karamana-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 002. (By Adv. Elizabeth Emmanuel)
Opposite parties:
The Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Poojappura Section V., Karamana-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 2. The Managing Director, P.H.(South), Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. C. Sasidharan Pillai)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 26..12..2003, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..04..2009, the Forum on 15..06..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is the occupant of the premises having water connection bearing No.KMA.786 and the said consumer No.stands in the name of late Sri. P. Somasekharan Thampi, that complainant has been remitting the water charges from 1997 under slab system, that the complainant is not a defaulter, that the slab system introduced by the opposite parties increased from Rs.19/- to Rs.26/- per month, that the water meter is not in working condition from 1997 till date, and that opposite parties did not replace the faulty meter with new one. When the complainant approached the 1st opposite party to remit water charges for the year 2001-2002, the 1st opposite party simply demanded to remit an amount of Rs.2,898/- as arrears noted in a piece of paper without any authentication by the competent officer of Kerala Water Authority. The complainant sent a petition dated 25/7/2002 to the 1st opposite party, though the same was received by the 1st opposite party and not replied so far. The complainant's family is a small family. The opposite parties contention of over usage of water is false and misleading. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties for accepting water charges @ Rs.26/- per month from 4/2001 till date and to pay compensation to the complainant.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the consumer is a defaulter since 2001, that he had remitted water charges upto 3/2001 for only 10kl whereas the actual consumption was always above that. The water meter is not in a working condition, that the meter replacement will be done only if all the water charge arrears are cleared and sound water meter is produced by the consumer for replacement, which had not been adhered to. Due to the lack of consumer bill, the arrear was noted in a piece of paper. The arrear was strictly calculated as per the meter readings in support of Kerala Water Authority's existing rules. The water charges were assessed based on the actual consumption from the working meter as per the prevailing rates. There is no illegal, ill-motivated and malafide attitude on the part of opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is liable to remit arrears of Rs.2,898/-? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Reliefs and Costs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. In rebuttal, 1st opposite party has filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not file any documents. 5. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, complainant is the occupant of the premises having water connection bearing KMA 786 and the said consumer number stands in the name of late P.Somasekharan Thampi. It has been the case of the complainant that he has been remitting the water charges from 1997 under slab system, that he is not a defaulter, that the slab system introduced by the opposite parties increased from Rs.19/- to Rs.26/- per month, that water meter is not in working condition from 1997 till date, and that opposite parties did not replace the faulty meter with new one. It has also been the case of the complainant that when he approached the 1st opposite party to remit water charges for the year 2001-2002, the 1st opposite party simply demanded to remit an amount of Rs.2,898/- as arrears noted in a piece of paper (Ext.P1) without any authentication by the competent officer of Kerala Water Authority. Submission by the opposite parties is that due to lack of consumer bill at that time, the arrears was noted in a piece of paper. Ext.P2 is the copy of the letter dated 25/7/2002 addressed to the 1st opposite party requesting for a detailed statement of account. Ext.P3 is the copy of the postal receipt dated 25/7/2002, Ext.P4 is the copy of the acknowledgment card. Though 1st opposite party received the Ext.P2 letter requesting for detailed statement of account, 1st opposite party did not send any reply to Ext.P2 nor did 1st opposite party send statement of account to the complainant. Ext.P5 is the copy of another letter dated 17/9/2002 addressed to the Chief Engineer, KWA requesting him to issue a realistic bill, after deducting the payments already made in accordance with the provisions of the slab system. Exts.P6 & P7 are the copy of postal receipts and acknowledgment card. Ext.P8 is the copy of the receipt dated 24/3/2003 for Rs.650/- issued by the opposite parties. Submission by the complainant is that the amount of Rs.650/- as per Ext.P8 is seen remitted as per the order dated 4/2/2003 of this Forum when the complainant moved a petition before this Forum for giving direction to the opposite parties not to disconnect the water connection. It is pertinent to note that even after receiving Ext.P2 letter by the 1st opposite party and Ext.P5 letter by the Chief Engineer, KWA, neither reply nor statement of account is seen sent to the complainant. Opposite parties admits that the water meter is not in a working condition, but submits that the arrear amount has been calculated strictly as per the meter readings. Opposite parties' statement itself is full of paradox and ambiguity. It is to be noted that the arrear amount is seen mentioned in a piece of paper without authentication. No copy of the printed bill is furnished by the opposite parties to prove the authenticity of Ext.P1. The onus of proving the authenticity of Ext.P1 is upon the opposite parties. Opposite parties did not prove it. Moreover, opposite parties have not acted as per Provision 13 of the Water Supply Regulations. No adjustment bill is seen issued by the opposite parties to the consumer indicating the excess or short remitted by the consumer. In the absence any cogent and clinching evidence on the part of opposite parties in support of Ext.P1 demand for Rs.2,898/-, we hold that the said demand is unilateral and against facts and hence we hereby quash Ext.P1 demand. 6. In view of the above, we find complainant is not liable to remit the said amount as per Ext.P1 demand. In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Ext.P1 demand issued by 1st opposite party is hereby quashed. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Parties shall bear and suffer their costs. 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 15th day of June, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad. O.P.No.517/2002 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness : NIL II. Complainant'sa documents: P1 : Copy of meter reading from 10/7/95 to 17/11/2001 P2 : Copy of Regd. Letter dated 25/7/2002 issued to the opposite parties by complainant. P3 : Copy of postal receipt dated 25/7/2002 P4 : Copy of first page of acknowledgement card dated 26/7/02 P4(a) Copy of second page of " P5 : Copy of letter dated 17/9/2002 addressed to opposite party by complainant. P6 : Copy of postal receipt dated 18/9/2002 P7 : Copy of postal acknowledgement card P8 : Copy of receipt dated 24/3/2003 of con.No.KWA/786/D for Rs.650/-.
III. Opposite parties' witnes : NIL
IV. Opposite parties documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
