BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 72/2001 Filed on 09/02/2001 Dated: 30..06..2009
Complainant: T. Visalakshy Amma, Gopi Vilasom, T.C.10/136, Swathy Nagar Lane-I, Peroorkada – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S. Reghukumar)
Opposite party:
Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Authority Sub Division, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.S. Bhanukrishna Kumar)
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 02..09..2003, 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 30..05..2009, the Forum on 30..06..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party vide consumer No.KDR 3661, that the connection was taken for domestic purpose and complainant was remitting water charges under domestic rate, and that on 11/1/2001 complainant was served with a notice requesting her to pay Rs. 17,311/- towards water charges upto 12/2000 within 7 days from the date of service of notice. Since there was no water supply through the service line, complainant had installed a pump set to lift water from the well for domestic purpose. On receiving the said notice complainant contacted the opposite party and it was informed by opposite party that the said connection was recorded in the official records of the opposite party under non-domestic category. Hence this complaint to direct opposite party to effect conversion of tariff from non-domestic to domestic category. 2. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending, that the complaint is not maintainable, that till 10/6/1988 the consumer was remitting charges at domestic rate, that the complainant requested for converting the connection from domestic to non-domestic which was accepted by opposite party as per rules, and that thereafter, complainant had not yet applied for changing the category to domestic. Hence connection is still continuing as non-domestic. Meter of the said connection was working upto 4/96. The arrear charge claimed is for the period from 7/1988 to 12/2000. The average consumption arrived is 21kl per month and monthly non-domestic charge was Rs.156/-. The consumer had never turned up to remit the charges ever since 6/1988, even minimum rate of water charges as per Provisional Invoice Card. If complainant applies to change the connection to domestic, opposite party would consider it as per rules. Complainant is bound to pay the arrears of water charge which was already used. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the notice dated 11/01/2001 quashed? Whether the complainant is entitled to get a fresh bill on the basis of domestic rate? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
(iv)Whether complainant is entitled to get any other reliefs? 4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of herself as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P5 were marked. In rebuttal, the opposite party has filed a counter affidavit and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked. 5. Points (i) to (iv): Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. KDR 3661 and connection was taken under domestic category. The case of the complainant is that there is no water supply through the service line, and that complainant has installed a pump set to lift water from the well for domestic purpose. It has also been the case of the complainant, the connection is seen recorded in the official records of the opposite parties under non-domestic category. It is admitted by the opposite parties that KDR 3661 was a domestic connection and that consumer was remitting water charges under domestic rate till 10/6/88. Submission by the opposite parties is that, on 10/5/88, the consumer requested for converting the domestic connection to non-domestic rate, and opposite parties converted the same to non-domestic category after collecting the fee at the rate of changed category. Opposite parties submit that complainant has not yet applied for changing the category to domestic and hence the connection is still continuing as non-domestic category. Complainant submitted that she had never submitted any such application as alleged in the version and that the said allegation is false. Complainant has filed a petition to direct the opposite parties to produce the said application dated 10/5/88. Even after direction by this Forum, opposite parties neither furnished the said application nor filed any affidavit stating that the reason for non-production of the document. Submission by the complainant is that the allegation of change of category from domestic to non-domestic was intended to justify their illegal action. Further, complainant says during March 1988 to February 1989, complainant was residing with her son at Munchira in Tamil Nadu. The onus of proving the conversion of tariff from domestic to non-domestic on request of the complainant would rest on the party who raises the allegation. Opposite parties neither furnished document nor filed any affidavit in response to the direction of this Forum to produce document. Hence we draw adverse inference against opposite parties as to the existence of such an application dated 10/5/88 and find the issuance of bill under non-domestic category is unilateral and against facts. Complainant is not liable to pay water charge under non-domestic category. Ext. P2 is the copy of notice dated 18/8/99 addressed to Parameswaran, requesting him to replace/repair the water meter provided to water supply connection No.KDR 3662. Ext.P2 is the copy of property tax receipt issued by Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to the complainant. Ext.P3 is the copy of the Ration card No.1102009790. Ext.P4 is the copy of Identity card of Sasikumar. Ext.P5 is the copy of the notice dated 11/1/2001 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. It is seen stated in Ext.P5 that complainant has not paid Rs.17,311/- towards water charges upto 12/2000 within the time allowed and that the supply of water will be cut off from the said premises at complainant's expense after 7 days of service of Ext.P5. No material on record to show the remittance of water charge by the complainant. Complainant never furnished the Provisional Invoice Card also. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of evidence available on records, we find the conversion of tariff from domestic to non-domestic by opposite parties was unilateral and not at the request of the complainant as alleged in the version and hence complainant is entitled to get fresh bill on the basis of domestic rate.
In the result, the notice dated 11/1/2001 issued to the complainant by the opposite party is hereby cancelled. Opposite parties shall raise fresh notice/bill on the basis of domestic rate. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Both 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 30th day of June, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad. O.P.No.72/2001 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of letter dated 18/8/99 issued by the opposite party. P2 : Copy of official receipt No.185192 dated 2/8/2001 issued by Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. P3 : Copy of first page of ration card No.1102009790 of the complainant. P4 : Copy of the voters Identity card of the complainant's son, Sasikumar.
III. Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
ad. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 72/2001 Filed on 09/02/2001 Dated: 30..06..2009
Complainant: T. Visalakshy Amma, Gopi Vilasom, T.C.10/136, Swathy Nagar Lane-I, Peroorkada – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S. Reghukumar)
Opposite party:
Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Authority Sub Division, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.S. Bhanukrishna Kumar)
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 02..09..2003, 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 30..05..2009, the Forum on 30..06..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party vide consumer No.KDR 3661, that the connection was taken for domestic purpose and complainant was remitting water charges under domestic rate, and that on 11/1/2001 complainant was served with a notice requesting her to pay Rs. 17,311/- towards water charges upto 12/2000 within 7 days from the date of service of notice. Since there was no water supply through the service line, complainant had installed a pump set to lift water from the well for domestic purpose. On receiving the said notice complainant contacted the opposite party and it was informed by opposite party that the said connection was recorded in the official records of the opposite party under non-domestic category. Hence this complaint to direct opposite party to effect conversion of tariff from non-domestic to domestic category. 2. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending, that the complaint is not maintainable, that till 10/6/1988 the consumer was remitting charges at domestic rate, that the complainant requested for converting the connection from domestic to non-domestic which was accepted by opposite party as per rules, and that thereafter, complainant had not yet applied for changing the category to domestic. Hence connection is still continuing as non-domestic. Meter of the said connection was working upto 4/96. The arrear charge claimed is for the period from 7/1988 to 12/2000. The average consumption arrived is 21kl per month and monthly non-domestic charge was Rs.156/-. The consumer had never turned up to remit the charges ever since 6/1988, even minimum rate of water charges as per Provisional Invoice Card. If complainant applies to change the connection to domestic, opposite party would consider it as per rules. Complainant is bound to pay the arrears of water charge which was already used. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the notice dated 11/01/2001 quashed? Whether the complainant is entitled to get a fresh bill on the basis of domestic rate? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
(iv)Whether complainant is entitled to get any other reliefs? 4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of herself as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P5 were marked. In rebuttal, the opposite party has filed a counter affidavit and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked. 5. Points (i) to (iv): Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. KDR 3661 and connection was taken under domestic category. The case of the complainant is that there is no water supply through the service line, and that complainant has installed a pump set to lift water from the well for domestic purpose. It has also been the case of the complainant, the connection is seen recorded in the official records of the opposite parties under non-domestic category. It is admitted by the opposite parties that KDR 3661 was a domestic connection and that consumer was remitting water charges under domestic rate till 10/6/88. Submission by the opposite parties is that, on 10/5/88, the consumer requested for converting the domestic connection to non-domestic rate, and opposite parties converted the same to non-domestic category after collecting the fee at the rate of changed category. Opposite parties submit that complainant has not yet applied for changing the category to domestic and hence the connection is still continuing as non-domestic category. Complainant submitted that she had never submitted any such application as alleged in the version and that the said allegation is false. Complainant has filed a petition to direct the opposite parties to produce the said application dated 10/5/88. Even after direction by this Forum, opposite parties neither furnished the said application nor filed any affidavit stating that the reason for non-production of the document. Submission by the complainant is that the allegation of change of category from domestic to non-domestic was intended to justify their illegal action. Further, complainant says during March 1988 to February 1989, complainant was residing with her son at Munchira in Tamil Nadu. The onus of proving the conversion of tariff from domestic to non-domestic on request of the complainant would rest on the party who raises the allegation. Opposite parties neither furnished document nor filed any affidavit in response to the direction of this Forum to produce document. Hence we draw adverse inference against opposite parties as to the existence of such an application dated 10/5/88 and find the issuance of bill under non-domestic category is unilateral and against facts. Complainant is not liable to pay water charge under non-domestic category. Ext. P2 is the copy of notice dated 18/8/99 addressed to Parameswaran, requesting him to replace/repair the water meter provided to water supply connection No.KDR 3662. Ext.P2 is the copy of property tax receipt issued by Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to the complainant. Ext.P3 is the copy of the Ration card No.1102009790. Ext.P4 is the copy of Identity card of Sasikumar. Ext.P5 is the copy of the notice dated 11/1/2001 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. It is seen stated in Ext.P5 that complainant has not paid Rs.17,311/- towards water charges upto 12/2000 within the time allowed and that the supply of water will be cut off from the said premises at complainant's expense after 7 days of service of Ext.P5. No material on record to show the remittance of water charge by the complainant. Complainant never furnished the Provisional Invoice Card also. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of evidence available on records, we find the conversion of tariff from domestic to non-domestic by opposite parties was unilateral and not at the request of the complainant as alleged in the version and hence complainant is entitled to get fresh bill on the basis of domestic rate.
In the result, the notice dated 11/1/2001 issued to the complainant by the opposite party is hereby cancelled. Opposite parties shall raise fresh notice/bill on the basis of domestic rate. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Both 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 30th day of June, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad. O.P.No.72/2001 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of letter dated 18/8/99 issued by the opposite party. P2 : Copy of official receipt No.185192 dated 2/8/2001 issued by Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. P3 : Copy of first page of ration card No.1102009790 of the complainant. P4 : Copy of the voters Identity card of the complainant's son, Sasikumar.
III. Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
