IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.108/2011 (Filed on 04.05.2011)
Between:
John Koshy, 67 years,
Madathilzhikathu,
Enathu.P.O., Ezhamkulam,
Adoor Taluk,
Pathanamthitta Dist.
(By Adv. P. Appu) ….. Complainant
And:
1. Asst. Exe.Engineer,
P.H. Sub Division,
Kerala Water Authority,
Pathanamthitta.
2. Asst. Engineer,
Water Supply Sub-Division,
Adoor, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. G. Ajit Kumar) ….. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he is a domestic consumer of the opposite parties vide Con.No.D.243/Ezhamkulam. The complainant’s family consists of only three members and he is using only minimum quantity of water from the water connection provided to the complainant by the opposite parties and he is not a defaulter for the water charges. While so, the complainant’s meter became faulty and the matter was intimated to the 2nd opposite party and also he had paid ` 611 on 15.10.2010 being the water charges dues up to 15.10.2010. The faulty meter was also replaced on 15.10.2010. The complainant is residing in the upstairs of the building and the water flow most oftenly was very feeble. Moreover, the complainant is having a well with sufficient water and he is also using the water from the well for his day to day use. However, on 19.01.2011 opposite party issued a bill for `14,957. On getting the said bill, the complainant approached the opposite party and filed a complaint against the said bill. Thereafter, the opposite party convinced the petitioner that the bill was mistakenly issued and he is not liable to pay the same. Opposite party further made to believe the complainant that the opposite parties officials will check the water meter and if the meter is found defective, he is not liable to pay the bill amount dated 19.01.2011. But surprisingly the opposite party issued a registered notice cum disconnection notice directing to pay an amount of ` 19,073 as the arrears of the water charges. The said notice is vague and is without much detail. The impugned bill is illegal and complainant is not liable to pay the bill amount. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused mental agony and suffering to the complainant and hence the opposite parties are liable for the same. Hence this complaint for setting aside the impugned bills and for the realization of ` 10,000 as compensation along with cost of these proceedings.
3. Opposite parties filed their version with the following contentions:- Opposite parties admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party. According to the opposite parties, the complainant is residing at one side of the 1st floor of a double storied building complex and the ground floor is using as a hospital and the remaining portion of the 1st floor is rented to another family. Two other families are also residing at the rear side in an old building in the same compound. All of them are taking water from the complainant’s connection. Since the meter was found faulty, the complainant was directed to change the meter and as such a new meter was installed on 15.02.2010 with initial reading 0.340 KL. In the same time he remitted water charge of ` 616 up to 2/2010. After the installation of the new meter the 1st reading was taken on 08.07.2010 which showed the complainant’s consumption as 436.400 KL. The 2nd reading was taken on 07.02.2011 which showed the complainant’s consumption as 999.900 KL and that the last reading was taken on 09.02.2011 also showed the reading as 999.900. The last reading indicates that the meter again became faulty. As per the rules of Kerala Water Authority the consumption of water through a faulty meter is to be calculated at the average consumption registered for any previous period during which the meter was properly working. Accordingly, the opposite party calculated the average consumption for one month as 87 KL and they have issued the bill for `14,957 on the basis of the above said calculations. The complainant was getting sufficient water and the complainant has not made any complaints regarding the shortage of water. When the complainant approached the opposite party, the complainant was convinced that the bill issued is only for the actual consumption and he was also told that he is liable to pay the bill. But the consumer did not remit the water charges within the prescribed time. He was again served with the notice for remittance demanding the arrears. Even then he did not remit the water charges within the period and hence the complainant’s connection was disconnected on 04.04.2011 as per rules. With the above contentions, the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint as they have not committed any deficiency in service.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint is allowable or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A7. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that he is a consumer of the opposite parties and he is not a defaulter for water charges. He had cleared all his dues upto 1/2010 on 8.02.2010 as per the receipts issued by the opposite parties. At the time of said payment, his meter was faulty and it was also replaced by the complainant as per the direction of the opposite parties. According to the complainant, the replaced meter was also become faulty and on the basis of the reading taken from the faulty meter, the opposite party issued a bill for ` 14,987 dated 19.01.2011. He had also a case that during the said bill period, he is not getting water. Since the meter was faulty and he is not getting water, the bill issued by the opposite parties for ` 14,987 is illegal and he is not liable to pay the said amount. He also filed a complaint before the opposite parties on 31.01.2010 against the above said bill which was not considered by the opposite parties and they also issued a further bill for ` 19,073 being the arrears upto 03/2011. All the above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and hence the complainant prays for setting aside the impugned bills.
7. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant filed a proof affidavit and 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A4. Further, 3 documents were marked as Exts. A5 to A7 through DW1 for the complainant. Ext. A1 is the copy of representation dated 31.01.2011 submitted by the complainant before the opposite parties against the bill for ` 14,987 dated 19.01.2011. Ext. A2 is the notice dated 19.02.2011 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant for replacing the existing faulty meter. Ext. A3 is the demand-cum-disconnection notice dated 19.01.2011 issued by the opposite parties for `14,987 being water charges from 2/2010 to 11/2010. Ext. A4 is the registered notice issued by the opposite parties to the complainant demanding the arrears of water charges of ` 19,073 upto 03/2011 and the direction for replacing the faulty meter. Ext. A5 is the photocopy of the receipt dated 15.02.2010 for ` 10 collected from the complainant being the meter testing charge. Ext. A6 is the photocopy of the receipt dated 08.02.2010 for ` 616 for receiving water charges from 01/2009 to 01/2010. Ext. A7 is the copy of disconnection advice dated 16.03.2011 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
8. On the other hand, the opposite parties’ contention is that the complainant had paid the water charges only upto 01/2010 on 08.02.2010. At that time, the complainant’s meter was faulty. So the complainant was directed to replace the meter who complied the direction of the opposite parties by replacing the faulty meter during 02/2010. Thereafter the reading was taken on 08.07.2010 and 07.02.2011. On 08.07.2010, the complainant’s consumption was 436.400 KL and as on 07.02.2011, the consumption was 999.900 KL. During the next reading taken on 09.02.2011, the reading was seen as 999.900 KL which indicates the complainant’s meter is faulty. Therefore, as per the rules of the Kerala Water Authority, opposite parties calculated the total consumption based on the average consumption of the complainant based on the actual consumption recorded in the meter while the meter was working properly. As per the calculation, the complainant’s consumption is calculated as 87 KL per month. Accordingly, they have issued a bill for ` 14,897 for the period from 02/2010 to 11/2010. According to the opposite parties, the said bill is genuine and is for the consumed water and the complainant is liable to pay the amount. Further, the opposite parties denied the complainant’s contention that he was not getting water during this period. They also submitted that the complainant has not made any complaint for non-supply of water during this period. Moreover, opposite parties also submitted that 2 other families were also residing in the premises of the complainant and they are also using the water along with the complainant. So the consumption recorded in the meter is actual. In spite of the demand notice, complainant failed to pay the bill amount which resulted in the disconnection of the complainant’s water connection. So they argued that the complainant is liable to pay the bill amount with its interest and other cost.
9. In order to prove the case of the opposite parties, second opposite party filed a proof affidavit and on the basis of the proof affidavit he was examined as DW1.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the complainant had cleared his dues upto 02/2010 and he had replaced the faulty meter during 02/2010 as per the direction of the opposite parties. But the bill in question, i.e. Exts. A3 and A4 impugned bills are for the period from 02/2010 to 11/2010. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that he had paid any amount to the opposite parties for consuming the water from 02/2010 onwards. The complainant’s case is that he had not received water from 02/2010 onwards. But he failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate his allegation. On the other hand, opposite parties proved that during this period, the complainant had consumed water by submitting the meter reading details. The said meter reading details were not opposed by the complainant. So it is clear that from 02/2010 onwards, the complainant had got water and consumed water. So he is liable to pay for the said consumption. Since the complainant had a live water connection from 02/2010 onwards and in the absence of any evidence for any payment during the period from 02/2010 onwards made by the complainant, we are constrained to upheld Ext. A3 bill. Therefore, we find no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties and hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of February, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : John Koshy.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of representation dated 31.01.2011 submitted by the
complainant before the second opposite party.
A2 : Notice dated 19.02.2011 issued by the second opposite party to
the complainant.
A3 : Demand-cum-disconnection notice dated 19.01.2011 issued by
the first opposite party for ` 14,987.
A4 : Registered notice issued by the first opposite party to the
complainant.
A5 : photocopy of the receipt dated 15.02.2010 for ` 10 issued by
the opposite party to the complainant.
A6 : Photocopy of the receipt dated 08.02.2010 for ` 616 issued
by the opposite party to the complainant.
A7 : Photocopy of disconnection advice dated 16.03.2011 issued by
the first opposite party to the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : P. Nelson.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) John Koshy, Madathilzhikathu, Enathu.P.O., Ezhamkulam,
Adoor Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.
(2) Asst. Exe.Engineer, P.H. Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority
Pathanamthitta.
(3) Asst. Engineer, Water Supply Sub-Division, Adoor,
Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
