BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER C.C. No. 73/2006 Filed on 07.03.2006 Dated : 15.02.2010 Complainant: P.K. Cherian, Puthenparambil, T.C 2/3330, Chalakuzhy Road, Pattom Palace P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-4.
Opposite parties: Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Kowdiar Section, Kowdiar. Assistant Engineer, KWA, Kowdiar Section, Kowdiar. Accounts Manager, KWA, Jalabhavan, Vellayambalam-10.
(By advs. V.S. Hareendranath & S.K. Vijaya Sankar) This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.12.2009, the Forum on 15.02.2010 delivered the following: ORDER SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. KPM/1061/D, that till June 2005 opposite party used to arrive at the monthly consumption of water (in KL) during any period by dividing the quantity of water consumed during the period by the number of days and multiplying this figure by 30.4, that monthly charge was calculated on the basis of the slab system, that in August 2005 opposite party switched over to the spot billing system in which they arrived at monthly charge by referring to the Ready Reckoner prepared by them. The said system will work only if the readings are taken exactly at the expiry of one month or two months. Under the new system opposite party had collected excess amount. Complainant represented the matter to the opposite party, but no action was taken. Opposite party continued to issue bill under spot billing system. Even after repeated complaints to opposite parties no necessary action was taken by the opposite parties in this regard. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to give him credit of Rs. 128/- and pay an amount of Rs. 500/- as compensation. Opposite parties filed version contending that bimonthly billing system was in force till 07/2005, that under the said system though readings were taken bimonthly billing was done as per the previous meter reading, that considering the ambiguity and complaints of the consumers opposite party introduced spot billing system with effect from 08/05. As per the spot billing system bills are issued based on the consumption as per the current meter reading and meter readers are provided with ready reckoner to assess the bill amount as per the actual consumption. For effective and correct billing system readings are to be taken bimonthly without much variation. For effective implementation of the system an allowance of 10 days is allowed that means readings taken within a span of 50-70 days will be counted for bimonthly spot billing. Otherwise the systems cannot be implemented due to occurrence of holidays or unavoidable delays caused. When a new spot billing system was introduced the order of meter reading was disturbed and meter readers were engaged afresh from the starting route. Due to this there was some delay between 2 consecutive meter readings in the case of few consumers. Being a new system in the beginning there was slight delay in taking meter readings in the case of few consumers as that of the petitioner. At present there are not much variations between two consecutive monthly meter readings. The argument of the petitioner is to obstruct the new system of billing. Hence opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint. The points that arise for consideration are:- Whether the opposite party has collected excess amount from the complainant? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite party has not filed affidavit or documents. Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. KPM/1061/D and spot billing was introduced with effect from 08/05 and meter readers are provided with ready reckoner to assess the bill amount. It is the specific case of the complainant that the present system of assessing water charge will work only if the readings are taken exactly at the expiry of one month/two months, that the first reading under the spot billing was on 08.08.2005, thereby 87 KL was consumed in the course of 67 days, that if calculate charges on the basis of the old system of assessment the charge for bimonth will come to Rs. 255, but by referring it to ready reckoner the amount worked out would come to Rs. 295/-, thereby opposite party would collect an excess amount of Rs. 40/-. It is submitted by the complainant that the assessment of water charge under spot billing by referring it to ready reckoner will cause excess amount to be paid by the consumer. It is stated in their version by opposite parties that, bimonthly billing system was in force till 07/05, that under the said system though readings were taken bimonthly, billing was done as per the previous meter reading, that considering the ambiguity and complaints of the consumers, opposite parties introduced spot billing with effect from 08/05, that under the spot billing system bills are issued based on the consumption as per the current meter reading and that meter readers are provided with ready reckoner to assess the bill amount as per actual consumption. It is further averred in their version that for effective and correct billing the readings are to be taken bimonthly without much variations. It is further submitted by opposite parties that for effective implementation of the system an allowance of 10 days is allowed, i.e; readings taken within a span of 50 to 70 days will be counted for bimonthly spot billing, otherwise the system cannot be implemented due to occurrence of holidays and other unavoidable delays. It is further submitted by opposite parties that if the time gap exceeds 70 days, adjustment will be done in the subsequent bill. In view of the foregoing discussions we are of the considered opinion that there will be initial obstacles whenever a new system comes into force. If the said system is analyzed from the personal angle, it will definitely affect personally. When we analyze the new system from the societal point of view, the aforesaid method will be more practical for effective implementation. Nevertheless the gap between two readings shall not go beyond the span of 50 to 70 days. In view of the matter we do not see much force in the argument of the complainant that the new system was introduced with a view to collect excess amount from the consumers. There is nothing to attribute any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Deficiency in service not proved. Complaint has no substance which deserves to be dismissed. In the result, complaint is dismissed. Both 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 February 2010. G. SIVAPRASAD, President. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 73/2006 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - P.K. Cherian II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Receipt dated 29.08.2005 P2 - Bill No. 362 dated 06.08.2005 P3 - Receipt dated 17.10.2005 P4 - Bill No. 413 dated 05.10.2005 P5 - Receipt dated 23.01.2006 P6 - Bill No. 461 dated 27.12.2005 P7 - Meter replacement details and monthly consumption.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL PRESIDENT
| 
