IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.107/11 (Filed on 04.05.2011)
Between:
John Koshy,
Madathilazhikathu,
Enathu.P.O.,
Ezhamkulam Village,
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 Dist.
(By Adv. N.K. Chandrasekharan Nair) ….. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: Complainant availed a water connection from the 2nd opposite party and paid all the monthly bills without any default. On 14.11.2006, complainant filed an application to 2nd opposite party demanding for the disconnection of the said connection. As per the direction of opposite party, complainant had paid ` 65 as the disconnection charge on the said day itself. Thereafter the 2nd opposite party informed that his water connection stands disconnected. After the incident, the complainant never cared about the said connection.
3. On 06.10.2010, the 2nd opposite party issued a demand notice to the complainant and directed to pay ` 14,375 on or before 30.11.2010. Complainant approached the opposite parties and they assured that they would do the needful to redress the grievances of the complainant. Thereafter 1st opposite party issued another notice to the complainant and directed to pay ` 15,588. According to complainant, he is not liable to pay any amount as directed by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint for setting aside the bills with compensation of ` 10,000 and cost.
4. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that the complainant is a consumer of Kerala Water Authority with consumer No. ND-242/Ezh. from 03.06.2002 onwards. They admit that the connection was disconnected on 14.11.2006 as per the request of the complainant. According to them, during taking meter reading of the nearby domestic connections in the area, the meter reader noticed that the connection was reconnected and water was consumed by the complainant. On inspection of the AE & Overseer it is convinced that the connection is live and water available in the pipe line and clear that the complainant is using water through the connection. He had also convinced the same. The meter reading as on 08.07.2010 is 1977.900 KL (Meter fault).
5. Complainant’s meter reading from 18.06.2005 to 08.07.2010 is stated as follows:
Meter Reading date K.L
18.06.2005 970. 00 KL
10.08.2006 1080. 00 KL
08.07.2010 1977. 900 KL
18.03.2011 1977. 900 KL
Average consumption from 10.08.2006 to 08.07.2010 =
1977. 90 – 1080/48, say 19 KL/month.
6. According to them as per the “Kerala Water Authority Regulations 91” Para 15(d) 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 installed at the premises was registering correctly. Hence the average consumption from 10.08.2006 to 08.07.2010
= 1977.90-1080 = 19 KL/month
48
7. According to opposite parties the bill issued to the complainant for remitting the water charge for the consumed water. The details of bill issued to complainant are shown below:
Water charge for 10/2006 to 10/2010 = ` 13,885
For 11/2010 208
Interest for non-payment of bill 277
Notice charge 5 -------------------------
Total = ` 14,375
-------------------------
8. Due to the non remittance of the above bill, another bill with interest for the delay issued to the complainant. But he has not turned to remit the bill and hence the connection was disconnected on 18.03.2011 as per rules shown below:
Water charge upto 11/2010 = ` 14,375
For 12/2010 to 02/2011 with interest = ` 1,516
Total = ` 15,891
--------------
9. According to opposite parties, complainant has getting sufficient water and there is no complaints received from him regarding the shortage of water. During the time of inspections, it was noticed that the complainant was going enough water at the tank also. As the complainant has not remitted the water charges within the time period, the connection disconnected on 18.03.2011 and action is started to recovering the due amount as per rules. There is no fault on opposite parties’ part and they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
10. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?
(3) Reliefs & Costs?
11. Evidence of the complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and DW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A4. After the closure of evidence, both parties were heard.
12. Point Nos.1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the bill of ` 998 dated 14.11.2006. Ext.A2 is the disconnection fees of Rs.65 dated 14.11.2006. Ext.A3 is the bill of ` 14,375 dated 30.11.2010. Ext.A4 is the bill of ` 15,588.
13. In order to prove the opposite parties contention, 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit and examined as DW1. Apart from oral deposition opposite parties would not adduce any documentary evidence.
14. On the basis of the contention and argument of the parties, we have perused the entire material on record. Complainant’s case is that opposite parties issued illegal demand notice to pay arrears of water charges on 30.11.2010, though he disconnected the water connection on 14.11.2006. Opposite parties admitted that complainant disconnected the water connection. But noticed that the connection was reconnected and water was consumed by the complainant. As per calculation, complainant has to pay 19KL/month from 10.08.2006 to 08.07.2010, i.e. ` 14,375. Since the complainant has not remitted the said water charges, they issued notice which is proper and legal.
15. On a perusal of record, it is revealed that there is no dispute regarding the disconnection done by complainant voluntarily. The only dispute is that complainant reconnected the disconnected supply and used water without paying charges. They issued notice demanding the areas and charges of used water. According to them, consumption of water is calculated based on the average consumption of water just before the voluntary disconnection of complainant.
16. It is seen that as per Ext.A1 and A2, complainant remitted the areas of water charge and disconnection fees on 14.11.2006. By paying Ext.A2 amount the disconnection come into force on 14.11.2006 onwards. As per Ext.A3, complainant has to pay ` 14,375 as arrears of water charges from 10.08.2006 to 08.07.2010. But opposite parties failed to produce personal ledger of the complainant to prove the same. In this situation, the question arises “How Ext.A3 and A4 amount arise when the disconnection has effected on 14.11.2006. Opposite parties has not a contention that complainant has unauthorisedly reconnected the disconnected water connection. If it occurred, why opposite parties should not charge theft and criminal proceeding against the complainants. What prevented them to do so? On the other hand, if opposite parties would not actually disconnected after receiving Ext.A2 amount, it is a clear laches, inaction and dereliction of the concerned officials. If not actually disconnected the connection, it cannot be ruled out that any other person may have consumed the water. It is not proper to impose the burden of paying the water charges and areas to complainant only because once he was a consumer?
17. From the overall circumstances and the available evidence on record, it is learned that issuing Ext.A3 and A4 after disconnection is illegal, unfair, malafide, irregular and against all the cannons of justice. After issuing Ext.A1 and A2, opposite parties are estopped from issuing Ext.A3 and A4. By doing so, they used their power as ultravirus. It is a clear deficiency of service also. Therefore, complaint is partly allowable. The facts and circumstances of this case, no amount is allowable for compensation and cost.
18. In the result, complaint is allowed, thereby Exts. A3 and A4 bills are hereby set aside. Opposite parties are at liberty to realize Ext.A3 amount from the concerned official who was in charge at the time of disconnection of consumer No.ND-242/Ezh, if opposite parties desires so. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 7th day of February, 2012.
(Sd/-)
N. Premkumar,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (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 : Receipt dated 14.11.2006 for ` 998 issued by the opposite party to
the complainant
A2 : Receipt dated 14.11.2006 for ` 65 issued by the opposite party to the
complainant
A3 : Demand & Disconnection notice dated 06.10.2010 issued by the 1st
opposite party to the complainant
A4 : Bill for water charge for ` 15,588 issued by the 1st 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, Madathilazhikathu, Enathu.P.O.,
Ezhamkulam Village, 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 Dist.
(4) The Stock File.
