BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 59/2001 Filed on 01.02.2001 Dated : 16.02.2009 Complainant :
Prabhavathi Devi, T.C 36/222, Eanchakkal, Drainage Road, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. P.K. Padma Kumar)
Opposite parties:
Assistant Engineer, Water Works, Kuriathy Sub Division, Chalai Section. Chief Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. P. Dileepkhan)
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 09.08.2004, 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 15.01.2009, the Forum on 16.02.2009 delivered the following:
ORDER SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties having Con. No. FT 2574. Complainant consumes only minimum quantity of water. Complainant had paid the amount as per the tariff till November 2000. Opposite parties directed the complainant to pay a bill of Rs. 27,000/-, when the complainant approached for monthly remittance. On request of the complainant opposite parties issued a bill showing the arrears of Rs. 29,302/- on 31.12.2000. There was no chance for arrears of such exorbitant amount. The excess bill issued is only due to the fault of the Water Authority. The said bill was issued without disclosing the mode of assessment. No sufficient reasons are mentioned in the bills. The action of the opposite parties is illegal, arbitrary and unjustifiable. Hence this complaint to restrain the opposite parties from disconnecting the water connection, to set aside the bills issued by opposite parties and to order such other reliefs. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, that the Con. No. FT 2574 stands in the name of Sri. Narayana Pillai and not in the name of Prabhavathi Devi, that the Provisional Invoice Card was issued to the consumer at the time of connection, with a provisionally fixed monthly rate for monthly payments, and that if necessary, the rate will be revised further on the basis of periodical verification of meter readings. There was an arrear amount of Rs. 1244/-, out of this complainant had remitted an amount of Rs. 500/-. Thereafter complainant had remitted an arrear amount of Rs. 3,040/-. Subsequent remittance made by the consumer are at the rate of Rs. 65/- per month. Consumer has been paying monthly water charges of Rs. 65/- despite increased monthly consumption for the same. A sharp increase in the monthly consumption of the consumer is recorded from the readings taken from 12.10.1999 onwards. The consumer agrees that the meter is working properly and the readings are taken regularly by the meter readers. If the consumer had any doubt about the readings, he should have approached this office for clarification. Instead, after getting the bill for arrear amount the consumer had approached this Forum. The reliefs claimed by the complainant cannot be allowed at any rate. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The points that would arise for consideration are:- Whether the complainant is entitled to cancellation of bill? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Reliefs and costs.
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P5. In rebuttal, opposite parties did not file any documents or affidavit. Points (i) to (iii):- It has been the case of the complainant that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. FT 2574, that complainant consumes only minimum quantity of water, that in 1999 opposite parties issued a provisional invoice card fixing monthly charge at Rs. 65/-, and that complainant had paid the said amount till November 2000, and thereafter opposite parties issued arrear bill dated 31.12.2000, without mentioning the working condition of the meter, the quantity consumed, closing meter reading and opening meter reading and with strict direction to pay the arrears within two weeks from the date of issuance of the bill. It has also been the case of the complainant that complainant had never consumed water in large scale and used only for daily needs and that the excess bill issued is only due to the fault of the water authority. Opposite parties did not file affidavit or documents to substantiate the pleadings in the version. As per version filed by the opposite parties, the Consumer No. FT 2574 is given to Sri. Narayana Pillai and not in the name of the complainant. It is pertinent to note that complainant is a widow. Though connection was taken in the name of her husband Narayana Pillai, complainant is a beneficiary. As per the Consumer Protection Act, in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative would become complainant. Ext. P1 is the copy of the provisional invoice card issued in the name of Narayana Pillai. As per Ext. P1, monthly amount as on 04/99 was Rs. 65/-. The said amount is seen remitted as per payment schedule upto 10/2000. It is stated in Ext. P1 that “the amount indicated for monthly payment is only provisional. The actual amount due will be ascertained on reading meters and necessary adjustment bill showing amounts due to/from you will be sent to you once in six months.” Ext. P2 series include receipts beginning from 04.02.2000 to 10.10.2000 issued by opposite parties. As per Ext. P2 series, monthly remittance is Rs. 65/-. The said receipts are in the name of Narayana Pillai. Ext. P3 is the consumer bill dated 31.12.2000 for Ra. 29,302/- issued by opposite parties in the name of Narayana Pillai. Ext. P4 is the consumer bill dated 24.02.2003 for Rs. 29,788/- and Ext. P5 is the consumer bill dated 24.04.2003 for Rs. 30000/-. It is pertinent to note that nowhere in Exts. P3 to P5 is it mentioned by opposite parties about the details of closing meter reading, opening meter reading and quantity consumed. There is no mention regarding the date from which arrears started. It is quite strange to see that opposite parties have issued the consumer bills stating the arrears without disclosing the manner in which such arrears were assessed. Complainant in her affidavit stated that complainant was served a photocopy of an undated notice and informed by opposite parties that her water meter is faulty and directed her to replace the mater within 36 days from the date of notice and if in otherwise the charge would be increased upto 100% and would finally disconnect the service without notice. It is further submitted in the affidavit that on 02.05.2001 the officials of the opposite parties took away the meter and disconnected the service connection and due to direction issued by this Forum the very next day the opposite parties reconnected the service and the meter was installed. Complainant did not furnish the said undated notice nor did mention the same in the complaint. Since opposite parties did not challenge the same by way of evidence, the affidavit of the complainant remains uncontroverted. The issuance of Exts. P3 to P5 are against the provisions of the Water Supply Regulations. In view of the above, we find the said bills deserve to be quashed. Preparation of bills without any basis would amount to deficiency in service. Complainant has not mentioned the date of death of the original consumer in the complaint or affidavit. Still the house connection stands in the name of the deceased. There is provision for change of house connection. There is no material on record to show that the meter is faulty or not working. In case of faulty meter, there are provisions for replacement of meter as per Regulation 12 of the Water Supply Regulations. In this case, the question of replacement of meter if any would come only after effecting the transfer of house connection to the name of the complainant as per the provision of the Water Supply Regulations. In the result, complaint is allowed. The bills (Exts. P3 to P5) issued by opposite parties are hereby cancelled. Opposite parties are at liberty to raise fresh bills on the basis of actual consumption as stipulated in the Water Supply Regulations, on transfering the house (water) connection to the name of the complainant as per the provision of the Water Supply Regulations. There will be no compensation and costs in facts and circumstances of the case. 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 day of 16th February 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, President. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 59/2001 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : NIL II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Photocopy of provisional invoice card of consumer No. FT 2574. P2 series - 1. Receipt dated 04.02.2000. Receipt dated 08.03.2000. Receipt dated 07.04.2000 Receipt dated 05.06.2000. Receipt dated 04.07.2000. Receipt dated 03.08.2000. Receipt dated 10.10.2000.
P3 - Consumer Bill dated 31.12.2000. P4 - Consumer Bill dated 24.02.2003. P5 - Consumer Bill dated 24.04.2003.
III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
