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. 96(A)/2010 Filed on 23/03/2010

Dated: 31..03..2011

Complainants:

1. Consumer Vigilance Centre, Sreekovil, Kodungannoor – P.O., Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 013.

2. C. Raju, Ilavuninna Thunduvila Veedu, Kazhivoor – P.O., Kanjiramkulam, Neyyattinkara.

    

Opposite parties:

1. Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Supply Division, Kerala Water Authority, Neyyattinkara.

2. Assistant Executive Engineeer, Water Supply Division, KWA., Kanjiramkulam.

3. Robinson, Overseer, Water Supply Sub Division, KWA., Kanjiramkulam.

(By Adv. R. Rajesh)

This O.P having been heard on 29..01..2011, the Forum on 31..03..2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, 2^nd complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No.KJP 1394 under Kanjiramkulam Section of Kerala Water Authority, that he was remitting water charge as per the Provisional Invoice Card issued by the opposite parties, without any default, that thereafter water consumption under BPL became free, from thereon opposite party has not been collecting water charge from the complainant, that he was informed by the meter reader that the meter installed in his premises was not running and he was directed to replace the faulty meter with a new one with the consent of the opposite parties, that on his application the 3rd opposite party and his helper agreed to replace the faulty meter with a new one on receipt of Rs.1,500/-, that after the replacement of the faulty meter he suffered a lot as there was no water in his connection, that when he complained the same helper of the 3^rd opposite party further demanded Rs.1,000/-, against which 2^nd complainant moved a complaint before the 1^st opposite party who directed the worker of the 2^nd opposite party to replace the faulty meter and accordingly water meter was replaced. It is submitted by the 2^nd complainant that the subsequent installation of the new meter was not at a place where the faulty meter was situated, that this was done with a malafide intention to trap him which ultimately led to the disconnection of the said connection on 16/11/2009 on raising the allegation that there was unauthorised tapping by the 2^nd complainant from before the meter point, that narrating the facts, the 1^st complainant sent a notice dated 1/3/2010 to 1^st opposite party who forwarded the same to the 2^nd opposite party. No action taken by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to restore water connection and pay compensation and cost to 2^nd complainant.

2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that under BPL category water consumption below 10 KL is free, that though complainant had applied for benefits under BPL which was not in prescribed form, that though 2^nd complainant was requested to furnish application in prescribed form, that was not done so far, that it is the meter reader who informed the consumer about the meter status, that the 3^rd opposite party never demanded money from the 2^nd complainant as alleged in para 3 of the complaint, that as per the request of the 2^nd opposite party faulty meter was replaced with a new one, that the new meter was installed at a place where the faulty meter was situated, that on 16/11/2009 on getting information over phone about unauthorised use of water by 2^nd opposite party, the Assistant Engineer inspected the premises of the consumer and found that 2^nd complainant had used water unauthorisedly from before the meter point, thereby 2^nd complainant attempted to enjoy the benefits of BPL by showing water consumption below 10KL, that the action of the 2^nd complainant would cause under criminal offence, that the new meter was installed in his premises by a licensed Plumber with the consent of the opposite parties and that the connection was disconnected by opposite parties due to unauthorised use of water by the consumer. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the 2^nd complainant is entitled to restoration of water connection?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. Whether 2^nd complainant is entitled to compensation and cost?

In support of the complaint, 2^nd complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P7. In rebuttal, opposite party has not filed proof affidavit or any documents.

4. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, 2^nd complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. KJP 1394 under Kanjiramkulam Section of Kerala Water Authority. It has been the case of the 2^nd complainant that he was remitting water charges without any default, that thereafter he was exempted from payment as he came below the poverty line. It has also been the case of the 2^nd complainant that he was informed by the meter reader that the meter in his premises was not running and hence he was directed to replace the faulty meter with a new one with the consent of opposite parties. It has also been contended by the 2^nd complainant that he moved on application to 2^nd opposite party's office for replacement of the faulty meter, upon which, the 3^rd opposite party (the Overseer) and his helper replaced the faulty meter on payment of Rs.1,500/-. It has also been the case of the 2^nd complainant that after replacement of the faulty meter he had suffered a lot as there was no water in his connection. On contact of the 3^rd opposite party, his helper further demanded Rs. 1,000/- against which he moved a petition before the 1^st opposite party who directed 2^nd opposite party's worker to replace the faulty meter, but 3^rd opposite party's worker installed the new meter not at the place where the former meter was situated, which was done with a malafide intention to trap him which ultimately resulted in disconnection of the said connection. Complainant has adduced evidence which consists of oral testimony of the 2^nd complainant and Exts. P1 to P7. Ext. P1 is the copy of the Provisional Invoice Card. As per Ext. P1, the monthly amount to be remitted comes to Rs. 22/-. Ext. P2 is the copy of the petition by the 2^nd complainant to 1^st opposite party requesting the latter to conduct enquiry about the status of the replaced meter and about the excess demand made by the worker of the 3^rd opposite party. It is seen ordered on 21/10/2008 by the 1^st opposite party in Ext. P2 to inspect the site and verify whether the meter is working or not. Ext. P3 is the copy of the letter by the 2^nd complainant to 1^st opposite party complaining about the non-availability of water in his premises. Ext. P4 is the notice dated 16/11/2009 regarding site inspection dated 16/11/2009. As per Ext. P4, Assistant Engineer reported that there was unauthorised tapping from before the meter point. Exts. P5 to P7 are copies of the notices sent by complainant at various dates. Complainant has not been cross examined by opposite parties, nor has opposite party filed affidavit or documents if any to substantiate their contention in the version. Opposite party has not furnished site Mahazar prepared by the Assistant Engineer. It remains uncertain as to whether site inspection was done by opposite parties in the presence of the 2^nd complainant or in his representative. It has been asserted by the 2^nd complainant that he had not committed any offence as stated in Ext. P4 notice nor had Assistant Engineer inspected the site. The stand of the opposite parties has not proved by oral testimony or documentary evidences. Complainant has not been cross examined thereby the affidavit filed by the 2^nd complainant remains uncontroverted. Further, during the pendency of the complaint, this Forum directed opposite parties to restore connection on petition filed by the 2^nd complainant along with the original complaint. Opposite parties had complied with the order. The interim order to restore water connection requires to be made absolute. No allegation raised by opposite parties that complainant is a defaulter. Reasons for disconnection of the aforesaid connection not proved by opposite parties with cogent and clinching evidence. Deficiency in service proved.

In the result, complaint is allowed. The interim order dated 4/5/2010 in IA No. 111/2010 of restoration water connection to consumer No. KJP 1394 is made absolute. In facts and circumstance of the case, there will be no Order as to compensation. Parties are left 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 31^st day of March, 2011.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI .A.,

MEMBER .

S.K. SREELA,

MEMBER.

ad.

C.C.No: 96(A)/2010

APPENDIX

I. Complainants' witness:

PW1 : NIL

II. Complainants' documents:

P1 : Copy of the Provisional Invoice Card

P2 : " petition by the 2^nd complainant to 1^st opposite party

P3 : " letter by the 2^nd complainant to 1^st opposite party dated 07/09/2009.

P4 : " notice dated 16/11/2009 issued by opposite party

P5 : " letter issued by the 2^nd complainant dated 8/12/2009.

P6 : " letter issued by the 1^st complainant dated 01/03/2010.

P7 : " letter issued by the opposite party to 1^st complainant dated 8/3/2010.

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT