IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of March, 2011
Filed on 23.07.10
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.154/10
Between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri.Mohanan.P.R, Assistant Executive Engineer, Sivaprasadam, P.H Sub Division,
Pazhaveedu Ward, Kerala Water Authority,
Alappuzha. Vazhicherry, Alappuzha.
(By Adv.V.Mohandas) (By Adv.S.Naushad)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant case is as follows: - The complainant is the consumer of the opposite party holding water connection bearing No.AWN7282. The complainant remitted the water charge till April 2010 without fail. The opposite party had issued the payment schedule of the water charge wherein it is specifically noted down that the monthly water charge is Rs.72/-(Rupees seventy two only). When matters stood thus, the complainant received a bill from the opposite party demanding him to remit Rs.16012/-(Rupees sixteen thousand and twelve only) as arrears of the aforesaid water connection. There after the opposite party issued a demand notice dated 23rd June 2010 to the complainant for an amount of Rs.16167/-(Rupees sixteen thousand one hundred and sixty seven only) requiring him to remit the amount within 7 days to avoid disconnection and recovery proceedings. The act of the complainant is illegal. There is deficiency of service on the part of the complainant. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being sent, the opposite party appeared before this Forum and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the 'meter' was installed in 28th October 2008. The meter reading, when examined on 9th April 2010 was 1198 KL. As such the monthly average of water consumption falls as 69 KL and the charge for the same runs to Rs.907/-( Rupees nine hundred and seven only). The complainant had been remitting mere Rs.72/-(Rupees seventy two only) instead of Rs.907/-( Rupees nine hundred and seven only) all through. The difference of the above said amounts when worked out from 28th October 2008 to 9th April 2010 arrives at Rs.16012/-(Rupees sixteen thousand and twelve only), the opposite party argues. The opposite party again, on 18th May 2010 took the reading. The same was 1236 KL. The average consumption was 29.6KL. On 16th June 2010, the reading was again observed, and the same showed 1259KL. On the said basis, the average consumption was 24.1KL. In line with the same the monthly charge has been trimmed down to Rs.117/- (Rupees one hundred and seventeen only). The complainant is liable to remit the said amount of Rs.16012/-(Rupees sixteen thousand and twelve only). The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.
2. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1, and the documents Exbts Al to A5 were marked. Exbt Al is the bill dated 18th May 2010, A2 is the bill dated 20th April 2010, A3 is the receipt dated 25th March 2010, A4 is the payment schedule dated 25th March 2010 issued by the opposite party and A5 is the demand notice dated 23rd June 2010. On the side of the opposite party its Asst. Executive Engineer was examined as RW1 and the documents Exbt. B1 collection details was marked.
3. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties the questions arise for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the complainant caused arrears in the water charge by remitting insufficient amounts throughout?
(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief prayed for?
4. The complainant case is that the complainant remitted water charge up to April 2010. In the meantime, in March 2010, the opposite party issued payment schedule wherein it was note down Rs.72/- (Rupees seventy two only) as monthly water charge. We went through the materials placed on record by the parties. We carefully perused the version and other evidence let in by the opposite party. At the first blush itself, it appears that the opposite party is not having a convincing or consistent stand. It is interesting to note that the opposite party admits that the complainant paid off the water charge until April 2010. The bone of the contention of the opposite party is that, the complainant ought to have remitted Rs.907/-( Rupees nine hundred and seven only) all through during the period from 28th October 2008 to 9th April 2010. In place of remitting Rs.907/-( Rupees nine hundred and seven only) the complainant only paid off Rs.72/-( Rupees seventy two only) right through. Thus, the complainant was remitting inadequate amount as water charge. According to the opposite party, the difference between the said amounts 907/- and 72/-, thus computed from 28th October 2008 to 9th April 2010 comes up to Rs.16012/-(Rupees sixteen thousand twelve only). In order to address the question whether the complainant had been remitting deficient amount as water charge we need to look into the basis on which the opposite party arrived on the said conclusion. According to the opposite party, the 'Water meter' was installed in October 2008. There after the reading was taken in 9th April 2010. It is pertinent to note that RW1 in cross-examination categorically admitted that the meter reading is to be taken in every 6 months. Strangely enough, in the instant case, the opposite party checked up the meter only after one and a half years. The opposite party arrived on to the conclusion that the complainant had been using 69KL water per month on the basis of this alleged inspection. It is worthwhile to note that no material is forthcoming to prove the said inspection. On a plain perusal of the pleas advanced by the opposite party, it is manifest that the assessment of the water charges or the manner in which the amount in question was arrived on has no sufficient materials to substantiate the same. We hold that the contentions put forth by the opposite party do not merit acceptance, which at the first blush itself appear implausible. Needless to say, the case advanced by the complainant stands sufficiently substantiated, more particularly so in as much as the complainant produced Exbts. A3 receipt and A4 payment schedule wherein the opposite party noted down monthly water charge as Rs.72/-(Rupees seventy two only). There after the opposite party cannot be heard of as clamoring for alleged arrears by the complainant. We are least hesitant to hold that the conduct of the opposite party as to the issuance of the notice in question apparently appears anomalous rather unauthorized. We are of the strong view that in as much as, the opposite party without any requisite basis issued notice to the complainant claiming a huge amount as arrears of water charge, the service of the opposite party is deficient. No doubt, the opposite party inf1icted enormous sufferings and tribulations to the complainant. Needless to say, the complainant is entitled to relief.
In the light of the aforesaid facts and findings, we hold that Exbt Al demand notice issued to the complainant by the opposite party is void, and as such the same stands cancelled. We further hold that the opposite party is entitled to obtain from the complainant the water charge of Rs.72/-(Rupees seventy two only) per month from April 2010 onwards if the same is not so remitted. The opposite party shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.
Complaint stands disposed accordingly. No order as to cost and compensation.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2011.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Mohanan.P.R (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The Consumer Bill No.KWA/AWN/May/2010/-724 Bill dated, 18.05.2010
Ext. A2 - The Cash Bill No.353 dated, 20.04.2010
Ext. A3 - The Receipt H111201 dated, 25.03.2010
Ext. A4 - The Payment Schedule – Provisional Invoice Card
Ext. A5 - The Notice No.JS.1163/09 dated, 23.06.2010 dated, 23.06.2010
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - B.Jayaprasad.B (Witness)
Ext. B1 - The Demand Details / Collection Details
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
