BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C.No. 388/2003 Filed on 24/09/2003
Dated: 16..08..2010
Complainant:
Mohanan, Melechira Mudippura Vilakathu Veedu, Pazhayatheruvumuri, Aryanad, Nedumangad.
(By Adv. Senthil Kumar)
Opposite parties:
Assistant Engineer, Water Supply Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority, Nedumangad.
Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Santhamma Thomas)
This O.P having been heard on 16..04..2010, the Forum on 16..08..2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No.ARD 109, that complainant had remitted water charges as per the Provisional Invoice Card upto 6/2003, that the connection has been under domestic category, that no meter reader from the opposite parties' office had come to his premise for meter reading since the date of connection, that opposite parties issued a consumer bill on 29/08/2003 for Rs. 16,983/- towards arrears of water charges from 8/91 to 6/2003, that in the said bill, monthly charge was fixed as Rs.177/- based on average consumption of 49 kl per month, that complainant had never used such quantum of water as stated in the bill nor had he committed any default in payment of water charges. Hence this complaint to cancel the said bill and to get compensation from the opposite parties.
2. Opposite parties filed version contending inter alia that complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties, that a Provisional Invoice Card was issued to the complainant at the time of effecting connection, that complainant had remitted minimum water charge as per the Provisional Invoice Card upto 6/2003, that during the period 1990 to 2002 there was no Meter Reader at Aryanad Section and hence readings could not be taken, that meter reader was posted only by the end of 2002 and meter reading on 3/11/2003 was 7095kl, that as per the reading on 7/2003, complainant had consumed 7000kl of water during the period 8/91 to 6/2003 at an average of 49kl per month. Hence consumer is bound to remit charges for excess quantity consumed over and above the pre-fixed quantity of 10kl per month, that the bill is prepared as per Rules. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get bill dated 29/8/2003 cancelled?
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and cost?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit, and has marked Exts. P1 to P3 series. In rebuttal, opposite parties have not filed affidavit or documents.
4. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No.ARD 109 and complainant had remitted water charges as per the Provisional Invoice Card upto 6/2003. It has been the case of the complainant that his water connection has been under domestic category and no meter reader from opposite parties' office had come to his premise for meter reading since the date of connection, that opposite parties issued a consumer bill dated 29/08/2003 for Rs. 16,983/- towards arrears of water charges from 8/91 to 6/2003, wherein, monthly charge is fixed as Rs.177/- based on average consumption of 49 kl per month, without any basis. It is the very case of the complainant, that he is not a defaulter in payment of water charges, that the allegation in the version that he has used water for the use of cattle is absolutely false, and denied the same. Opposite parties, in their version have averred arrear amount from 8/91 to 6/2003, and claimed that complainant had consumed 7000 kl of water during the said period. Ext. P1 is the consumer bill dated 29/8/2003, wherein arrears from 8/91 to 6/2003 is stated as Rs.16,983/-; on the basis of 49kl/month. It is pertinent to point out that status of meter stated therein Ext. P1 is working, while no closing meter reading or opening meter reading or quantity consumed recorded therein: Ext. P2 series would consist of two receipts – receipt dated 12/4/1993 for Rs.209/- towards water charges for 8/91 to 3/93 and receipt dated 21/7/2003 for Rs.22/- towards water charge for 6/2003. Ext. P3 is the Provisional Invoice Card wherein it is seen mentioned arrears of Rs. 209/- due upto 3/93 and on the overleaf of Ext. P3, payment schedule 93 – 94 is printed wherein remittance entry is recorded upto 4/94. Ext. P3(1) is the new Provisional Invoice Card wherein the column of payment schedule it is seen entered that monthly amount of Rs. 22/- remitted from 11/2002 to 6/2003. No other document furnished by the complainant to show remittance of water charges for the period from 5/94 to 10/2002. It is pertinent to point out that as per Ext. P3(1) Provisional Invoice Card no due is seen mentioned therein. Further it is to be noted that without remitting the monthly water charge upto 10/2002 opposite parties would never accept water charges from 11/2002 onwards. Opposite parties have neither filed affidavit nor produced documents if any, to substantiate their contention in their version. Complainant has filed affidavit and produced Exts. P1 to P3 and complainant has not been cross examined by the opposite parties thereby the affidavit filed by the complainant remains uncontroverted. The onus is on the opposite parties to prove with cogent and clinching evidence that complainant has used water as stated in the version, opposite party has not succeeded in establishing their allegation in the version. Further, in the absence evidence either oral or documentary on the part of opposite parties in support of their version, the contention in the version raising allegation against the complainant appears to be illusory, imaginary and against facts. Further under Regulation (13) it is mandatory that the charges 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, that if the water charges already remitted by the consumer is found to be in excess or short based on the meter reading 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, that an adjustment shall be issued once in every six months to the consumer indicating the excess or short remitted by the consumer. Opposite party has violated Provision (13) of Water Supply Regulation. Inview of the foregoing discussion and evidence available on the records, we find the issue of additional bill is devoid of merits which deserves to be cancelled. Deficiency in service proved.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The bill dated 29/8/2003 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant is hereby cancelled. 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 16th day of August, 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI. A,
MEMBER.
S.K. SREELA,
MEMBER.
ad.
O.P.No.388/2003
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Mohanan
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Consumer bill No. 1882 dated 29/08/2003
P2 : Receipt No. 4849 dated 12/4/1993
P3 : Provisional Invoice Card.
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL
PRESIDENT.
