IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2014
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member-I)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member-II)
C.C.No.36/2014 (Filed on 13.03.2014)
Between:
P.P. Abdul Khadar,
Puthuvathra Chemcheripparampil,
Nedumpram.P.O.,
Thiruvalla,
Pin – 689 578. ….. Complainant
And:
Asst. Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
Thiruvalla.
(By Adv. George. K. Mathew) ….. Opposite party
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The brief fact of this complaint is as follows: The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party vide Con.No.N-353. The complainant had taken this connection 30 years ago, and he had been using the said connection for the last 30 years. While so during 2009, opposite party informed the complainant that the complainant’s water meter is not working. So the complainant replaced the said meter. At that time, opposite party revised the complainant’s monthly minimum charge as Rs.42/- from Rs.22/-. Thereafter the opposite party issued a new invoice card on 25.01.2013 in which the monthly minimum charge is also shown as Rs.42/-. On the basis of the minimum charge shown in the invoice card the complainant had paid his monthly charge till December 2013. Till then the opposite party has not made any demand for any arrears on account of the water consumption of the complainant. The complainant was in the habit of remitting his water charges once in a year. Accordingly, when the complainant approached the opposite party for paying the water charges for the year 2014 (Jan 2013 to December 2013), opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.10,200/- being the complainant’s outstanding arrears from 2008 onwards at the rate of Rs.181 per month instead of Rs.42/-. But opposite party has not made any communications regarding the enhancement of the monthly charge or about the arrears till date. Further, the complainant is not getting sufficient water for the last 2 years and many complaints in this regard was also given to the opposite party. But the opposite party has not done any positive actions for providing sufficient water to the complainant inspite of the complainant’s complaint. At the same time opposite party told the complainant to remit the pending arrears and to change the meter. Since the complainant is not a defaulter till December 2013 and since no communication in respect of any arrears till December 2013, the demand of the opposite party for remitting the arrears from 2008 onwards is unjust, unfair and is a deficiency in service. The above said act of the opposite party put the complainant to much hardships and mental agony and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite party from withdrawing their demand for the arrears and for allowing the complainant for replacing his water meter if necessary, and allow the complainant to remit the water charges based on the actual consumption shown in the water meter.
3. In this case, opposite party filed their version with the following main contention: According to the opposite party the complainant’s meter reading as on 23.01.2007 is 132 kl. and as on 12.11.2010 it was 1643 kl. which means the complainant’s average monthly consumption is 33.1 kl. and the rate for the said consumption is Rs.183 per month. It is admitted that the complainant had paid Rs.480/- per year at the rate of 42/- per month till 21.01.2012. As per the applicable rate and tariff a consumer is allowed only to use 10 kl. water per month for Rs.42/-. But from 2007 January onwards, he had paid only the minimum charges for using 10 kl. water per month. But the complainant’s actual consumption per month is 33.1 kl. for which he has to pay Rs.183 per month from October 2013. So there is arrears and the complainant is liable to pay the said arrears. So the contention of the complainant that he is bound only to pay Rs.42/- per month is baseless and he had a total arrears of Rs.10,732/- till 03.09.2013 and the monthly charges subsequent thereof is also pending. Moreover, the opposite party has not demanded any interest for the arrears and the demand is only for the actual charges. Since the meter is not presently working, the complainant has to replace the meter also. The arrears of the complainant is legally entitled to the opposite party and the complainant is liable to pay the same also. This being the facts, this complaint is filed only for avoiding the payment of arrears and if the complainant had any difficulty to pay the arrears as a single payment, opposite party is ready for allowing instalments to the complainant. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint as they had not committed any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A4. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. The Point:- The complainant’s case is that he is a consumer of the opposite party and he had been paying the minimum charge as shown in the invoice card and he had paid his minimum charge till 31.12.2013 and he had no arrears till 31.12.2013. While so, when he approached the opposite party on 25.01.2013 for paying his minimum charge for the year 2014 (01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014), opposite party told the complainant that he had an arrears of Rs.10,200/- and the said arrears is for the period from 2008 and his present minimum charge is Rs.181/- per month whereas his minimum charge as per the invoice issued by the opposite party is Rs.42/- and he had paid his charges till 31.12.2013. According to the complainant, opposite party has not taken the periodical meter reading after 2009 or he has not been issued any arrear bills or he has not been intimated about the enhancement of his minimum charge to Rs.181/- from Rs.42/- so far. Without taking the meter reading or without intimating the enhancement of the minimum charges, opposite party are not entitled to demand an amount of Rs.10,200/- on account of arrears. Further the complainant’s grievance of not providing sufficient water is also not resolved by the opposite parties in spite of his written complaint to the opposite party. All the above said acts of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence the complainant prays for allowing this complaint.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and he had produced certain documents. The documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the provisional invoice card dated 25.01.2013 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A1(a) is that particular portion in Ext.A1 for showing the payment of minimum charge dated 25.01.2013 for the period from 1/13 to 12/13. Ext.A2 is the copy of the complaint submitted by the complainant before the Asst. Engineer of the 1st opposite party requesting from withdrawing the demand for arrears and to re-fix the minimum charge based on the actual consumption. Ext.A3 is the provisional invoice card showing the complainant’s payment from 02.04.2007 to 21.01.2012. Ext.A3(a) is that particular portion in Ext.A3 showing the complainant’s meter reading as 132 kl. as on 23.01.2007. Ext.A3(b) is that particular portion in Ext.A3 showing the complainant’s meter reading as 1643 kl. as on 22.03.2014. Ext.A4 is another copy of Ext.A2 showing the acknowledgment of Ext.A2 by the opposite party.
8. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that the meter shown in the complainant’s water meter was taken on 07.06.2006, 23.01.2007 and 12.11.2010. Based on the said readings, the complainant’s average monthly consumption is calculated as 33.1 kl. and as per the applicable tariff the monthly minimum charge of the complainant is Rs.181/- per month for his consumption of 33.1 kl./month. Therefore, the complainant’s minimum charge is revised as Rs.181/-. However, he had been paying only Rs.42/- and he had paid up to 31.12.2013 at that rate, he has to pay Rs.183/- from January 2007 as his consumption is 33 kl. per month. So there is arrears of Rs.10,200/- and the complainant is liable to pay the same. The demand for the same is legal and this complaint is filed by the complainant for avoiding the payment of the said arrears. The other allegation of the complainant that he is not getting sufficient water is also false as the complainant’s connection is given from the main line. The said allegation is made only for the purpose of this complaint. Thus the opposite party argued that they have not committed any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. In order to prove the case of the opposite party, the Asst. Executive Engineer of the opposite party filed a chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. On the basis of the chief affidavit he was examined as DW1. There is no documentary evidence in their favour.
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 is a consumer of the opposite party. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the demand of arrears from 2007 and the enhancement of the minimum charge. According to the complainant, opposite party has not taken the meter reading subsequent to 23.01.2007 and they have not intimated the revision of the complainant’s monthly minimum charge to Rs.181/- from Rs.42/-. In the circumstances, opposite party is not entitled to make a demand of any arrears based on the arbitrary enhancement of the minimum charge giving retrospective effect. But the contention of the opposite party is that they have taken the meter readings on 17.06.2006, 23.01.2007 and 12.11.2010 and based on the said reading the complainant’s monthly average consumption is found as 33.1 kl. and the minimum charge for the said consumption is Rs.181/- per month and hence the complainant is liable to pay the said monthly charge with its arrears. By paying Rs.42/-, the complainant is allowed only to use 10 kl. per month. So the demand of arrears and the enhancement of monthly charge based on the actual consumption is not an illegal act. But the opposite party has not adduced any evidence to show that they have taken the meter reading as claimed by them. In the circumstances, we are constrained to look into Ext.A3. As per Ext.A3(b) the last reading was taken on 22.03.2014 and the prior reading immediate to the said reading was on 23.01.2007. The reading dated 22.03.2014 is after the filing of this complaint. This clearly shows that the opposite party has not taken the reading after 23.01.2007. So the demand for the arrears from 2007 onwards based on the arbitrary revision of the minimum charge cannot be justified. It is the duty of the opposite party to take periodical readings and intimate about the consumption and revision of the minimum charges. Non-availability of the meter readers or other employees is not a ground for justifying their arbitrary actions. According to the opposite party, the arrear is from 2007 onwards. But opposite party is not entitled to make a demand for the arrears for more than 6 months as they are bound to take periodical meter reading at least once in 6 months. Therefore, we find that the above said act of the opposite party cannot be justified and it is a clear deficiency in service and hence this complaint is allowable.
11. However, the water meter of the complainant is said to be defective at present. The complainant is bound to replace the same and opposite party is entitled to revise the minimum charge based on the actual consumption and further entitled to receive the arrears for 6 months.
12. In the result, this complaint is allowed as follows:
- Opposite party is directed to receive the complainant’s monthly charges at the rate of Rs.42/- for the period from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014.
- The complainant is directed to replace the present defective meter within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order with the permission of the opposite party.
- Opposite party is directed to take the meter reading for 6 months from the date of installation of the new meter and based on the consumption revealed from the said meter reading, opposite party is allowed to revise the minimum charge and further allowed to issue an arrear bill for 6 months prior to the date of installation of the new meter based on the average consumption for 6 months from the date of installation of the new meter.
- Parties are directed to comply this order accordingly.
- In the nature and circumstances of this case, no orders for cost and compensation.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of August, 2014.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President).
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Abdul Khadar
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Provisional invoice card dated 25.01.2013 issued by the
opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A1(a) : Particular portion in Ext.A1.
A2 : Copy of the complaint submitted by the complainant before
the Asst. Engineer.
A3 : Provisional invoice card showing the complainant’s payment
from 02.04.2007 to 21.01.2012.
A3(a) : Particular portion in Ext.A3.
A3(b) : Particular portion in Ext.A3.
A4 : Copy of Ext.A2.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 : Jochan Joseph
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) P.P. Abdul Khadar, Puthuvathra Chemcheripparampil,
Nedumpram.P.O., Thiruvalla, Pin – 689 578.
(2) Asst. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvalla.
(3) The Stock File.
