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. 139/2003 Filed on 28/03/2003

Dated: 15..06..2010

Complainant:

Alex Sam Christmas, 'Asraya', Manaveli, Thirupuram.

(By Adv. T. Raja Raja Singh)

Opposite parties:

1. The Asst. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Kanjiramkulam.

2. The Asst. Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Neyyattinkara.

3. The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

(By Advs. Santhamma Thomas & P. Dileep Khan)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 17..09..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 11..02..2010, the Forum on 15..06..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.T.P 1019, that there is no regular water supply, that no meter reading properly taken by the opposite parties, that no default made by the complainant in remitting the water charge, that on 01/02/2003 a detailed bill was issued by opposite parties to the complainant to remit an additional amount of Rs.9,491/- for arrears due from 7/95 to 1/2003 including penalty and fine, that complainant issued an Advocate notice on 17/3/2003 to the opposite party stating that complainant in no way responsible to remit the excess bill amount because of some error in calculating the charges or some mechanical defect to the water meter, but no action taken by opposite parties. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to cancel the excess bill issued to complainant and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with cost.

2. Opposite parties filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the actual arrear bill arrived at was calculated on the basis of the existing Kerala Water Authority Rules, that the connection is given for household purposes, that there is regular supply of water almost all the days, that water charge was fixed on the basis of the meter reading taken once in six months, that consumer remitted only an amount of Rs.1,823/- as water charge from 26/7/1995 to 11/2002, that arrear upto 01/2/2003 was Rs.9,491/- and consumer is liable to remit the water charge fixed on the basis of meter readings. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bill dated 1/02/2003 cancelled?

    

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

    

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and costs?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P5. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed counter affidavit. Opposite party has not furnished any documents.

4. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.T.P 1019 and connection is under domestic category. It has been the case of the complainant that his family consists of four members of which two are minor students, and that complainant and his wife are employed as teachers in Government Services, that there was no regular water supply to his premises, that many requests have been made to opposite parties to ensure regular water supply, that no meter reading had been properly taken by opposite parties and that no default has been made by him in remitting in water charges on due date. Even then opposite party issued a bill dated 01/02/2003 for Rs. 9,491/- towards arrears, penalty and fine. It is the case of the complainant that he is no way responsible or liable to remit the excess bill since there is either material error in calculating the charge or some mechanical defect to the water meter. Opposite party resisted the complainant by submitting that there was regular supply of water almost all the days, that due to lack of employees earlier opposite party was not in a position to take the meter reading in time. It is submitted by opposite parties that complainant remitted water charge from 7/95 to 11/2002 on the basis of minimum rate for 10 KL, that as per meter reading taken on 2/11/2002, complainant consumed 3628 KL upto 11/2002, on the basis of which average billing was done, that average chargeable quantity was 42 KL/month. In support of the case, complainant has filed affidavit and six documents. Ext. P1 is the copy of the Provisional Invoice Card. On perusal of Ext. P1 it is seen that monthly amount to be remitted is noted as Rs. 22/- per month and consumption is under domestic category. On perusal of payment schedule (Ext.P1) it is seen that complainant has remitted water charge at the rate of Rs. 22/- per month upto 11/2002. Ext. P2 is the copy of the receipt for Rs.76/- towards water charges for 9/02 to 11/2002. Ext. P3 is the copy of the bill dated 01/02/2003 issued by 1^st opposite party. As per Ext. P3 from 7/95 to 11/2002 meter reading was 3628 KL, average chargeable quantity is 42 KL per month, that is at the rate of Rs. 142/- per month, thereby amount to be remitted noted as Rs. 9,491/-. Ext. P4 is the copy of the Advocate notice. Exts. P5 & P6 are acknowledgment card and postal receipts. It is to be noted that as per Rule regarding the assessment of charges on the consumer, if there is any excess amount due from six months, water authority has to assess it once in six months. This has not been done in this case. Opposite parties have not produced any documents, nor did opposite parties reply to Ext. P4 Advocate notice. It is pertinent to note that complainant has remitted water charges as per Provisional Invoice Card, without default. It is the duty of the opposite parties to issue adjustment bill if any once in six months. Opposite parties have not furnished the meter reading register to corroborate the contention in the version. It needs to be pointed out that after taking connection in 1995, no meter reading taken for 7 years, no bills issued, additional bill issued after lapse of 7 years, from which it is evident that there is grossest kind of deficiency on the part of opposite parties. Opposite party has not furnished any material to show when was meter reading taken by opposite parties in the premises of the complainant though complainant raised the issue that no meter reading has been taken by opposite parties after the connection. Meter reader has not been examined, nor has opposite party denied the allegation of the complainant that water meter was defective. Complainant has remitted water charges as per Provisional Invoice Card, there is no allegation that complainant is a defaulter. Opposite parties failed to act as per the Provisions of the Water Supply Regulation. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. From the above, we are of the considered opinion that the bill issued by opposite party is not on the basis of actual consumption which deserves to be cancelled.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Bill dated 01/02/2003 issued by opposite party is cancelled. There is no compensation in facts and circumstance of the case. Parties shall 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 15^th day of June, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad.

C.C.No.139/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's Witness:

PW1 : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of Provisional Invoice Card

P2 : " receipt dated 27/11/2002

P3 : " bill No. 486 dated 01/02/2003

P4 : " Advocate Notice

P5 : Acknowledgement card

P6 : Postal receipt dated 17/03/2003

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT