CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.291/10
Tuesday the 2nd day of August, 2011
Petitioner : C.P. Ananthavalliamma,
Ajaya Nivas, Perunna PO
Changanacherry, Kottayam.
Vs.
Opposite party : Asst.Exe.Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
Aaramalakunnu,
Near Changancherry Railway Station,
Changanacherry.
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
This case is remanded by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as per its order dated 11/10/10 in appeal No.424/10. The order of Hon’ble State Commission received to this Forum on 12/11/10. Appeal is preferred by the opposite party against expartee order in CC 114/10.
The case of the petitioner is that water connection of the petitioner was disconnected by the opposite party on January, 2004 without giving notice. Petitioner filed complaint regarding disconnection before the Asst.Exe.Engineer. Later he filed petition to the Kerala Water Authority Adalath but according to the petitioner no action was taken. An additional bill was issued by the opposite party for an amount of
Rs. 4830/- as arrears of water charges. According to the petitioner the bill issued is without any basis and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the petition.
Opposite party after remand of the case filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party they never disconnected petitioner’s water connection. Petitioner never made any petition regarding the same. According to the opposite party the disputed bill is for a period starting from 4/04 to 12/09. Petitioner filed petition to the District Adalath conducted by Kerala Water Authority on 14/1/10. In the Adalath opposite party was ready to reduce the arrear bill but the petitioner was not ready to accept the decision of the Adalath. Petitioner filed this case on 30/4/10, it was an after thought, in order to avoid payment of the bill. According to the opposite party bill issued is legal and proper and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Opposite party prays for dismissal of the petition with their costs
Points for determination are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties Exts.A1 to A9 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext.B1 and B2 document on the side of the opposite party.
Point No.1
The crux of the case of the petitioner is that opposite party even after disconnection of the domestic connection in 3/04 demanded arrears of water bill. The issuance of the bill according to the petitioner amounts to deficiency in service. The disputed bill is produced by the petitioner and the same is marked as Ext.A2. From Ext.A2 it can be seen that the bill is issued as a short assessment from 4/04 to 12/09. Copy of the meter reading register of the petitioner produced is marked as Ext.B1. In Ext.B1 it is shown that the meter of the petitioner is faulty from 25/3/04. As per Ext.B1 the meter reader inspected the site of the petitioner on 3/06, 10/06, 6/07, 2/08, 1/09, 10/09, 4/10 and 9/10. During10/06 and 6/07 premise of the petitioner is gate locked. Petitioner has a definite case that opposite party disconnected water connection of the petitioner without any notice. Opposite party contented that they never disconnected petitioner’s water connection. In our view without any solid evidence we cannot presume that water connection of the petitioner was disconnected. Ext.A4 notice is stated 5/8/05 as per Ext.A5 notice opposite party intimated the petitioner that meter of the petitioner is faulty. Even after receipt of Ext.A4 on 5/8/05 petitioner had not given any complaint to opposite party with regard to opposite party’s alleged prior disconnection. So we are of the view that the case set up by the petitioner with regard to prior disconnection is false. Ext.A2 is dated 4/12/09. From the records produced by the opposite party it can be seen that an Adalath was conducted with regard to the dispute on 14/1/10. So in our view this petition is an after thought, filed by the petitioner in order to avoid the liability covered by arrear bill. Regulation 13 of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) regulation 1991 stipulates how the water charge to be assessed and how a bill is to be generated Ext.A2 bill is issued without following the said regulation, in our view act of the opposite party in issuing a bill in violation of regulation 13 amounts to deficiency. Petitioner is legally liable to pay the minimum water charges without fine from 6/04 to 12/09. So point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 petition is allowed.
In the result Ext.A2 bill dated 14/12/09 is cancelled. Opposite party is directed to issue a fresh bill to petitioner for the minimum water charges without levying any fine to the petitioner. Order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 2nd day of August, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Authorization letter
Ext.A2-Bill dtd 4/12/09
Ext.A3-Receipt dtd 26/3/04
Ext.A3(a)endorsement
Ext.A4-Notice dtd 5/8/05
Ext.A5-Copy of the proceedings in Revenue Adalath
Ext.A6-Copy of letter dtd 28/3/11
Ext.A7-Series copy of receipts dtd 7/4/03 and 6/5/04
Ext.A8-Copy of complaint dtd 4/1/10 given by the petitioner to the Adalath
Ext.A9series copy of receipt dtd 3/2/97 and 21/9/04
Documents of the opposite party
Ext.B1-Copy of meter reading register
Ext.B2-Copy of consumer personal ledger.
