CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15th December, 2014
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 17/10/2013
CC /173/2013
Palakkad Rotary Club, : Complainant
East Rotary Trust,
Kanjikode Reptd by its Manager Usha
(By Adv.K.Sasidharan )
Vs
Assistant Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
PH Sub Division, Palakkad. : Opposite party
(Adv.Stanly James)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
Brief case of the complaint :-
The above petition is filed by the complainant so as to declare the bill issued by the opposite party dated 20/09/2013 as illegal and the complainant is not bound to pay the amount as per the bill and also to grant Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost.
The complainant is running a working women’s hostel and had applied for water connection as consumer No.302/NA/KG by an individual named Hari. According to the complainant water connection was obtained under domestic category. On January 2009 the complainant digged borewell and started taking water from the well. After that complainant had not used the pipe connection but was kept for emergency. Opposite party has issued a bill directing to pay Rs.74,360/- (Rupees Seventy four thousand three hundred and sixty only) as arrears of the water bill. The complainant states that he was not taking water from pipe connection from January 2009 onwards. Hence they had approached before the Forum seeking an order directing the opposite party to cancel the above bill along with compensation and cost. The above complaint was dismissed and the matter was taken up in appeal. The State Commission revised the order and the matter was remanded for fresh evidence. The matter was considered again and the complaint was allowed and the opposite party was directed to issue a fresh bill to the complainant without interest within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter the opposite party had issued notice to pay Rs.2,11,783/- (Rupees Two lakh Eleven thousand seven hundred and eighty three only) from 8/2008 to 11/2011. The complainant again approached before the Forum to cancel the bill dated 15/12/2013 along with cost and compensation. The said complaint was partly allowed and the forum directed the opposite party to cancel the notice dated 15/01/2013 and 15/02/13 for an amount of Rs.2,11,783/- and issue fresh bill under domestic category without interest, penal interest and surcharge within 30 days from the date of receipt of order along with Rs.1,000/- as cost and Rs.10,000/- as compensation. On 20/09/2013 the opposite party had issued a fresh bill under domestic category directing the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.2,02,033/-. Before the issuances of this notice opposite party had also issued another bill for an amount of Rs.7,59,165/- (Rupees Seven lakh fifty nine thousand one hundred and sixty five only). Hence the complainant had approached before this forum seeking an order to declare the above bill dated 20/09/2013 as illegal and he is not liable to pay the amount as mentioned in the above bill and to grant cost and compensation.
Notice was issued to the opposite party and they entered appearance and filed a detailed version. According to the opposite party they had complied with the order as in CC/54/2013 and they had issued a bill under the domestic tariff for an amount of Rs.2,02,033/-. They had paid the cost of the proceedings as directed by the Forum in CC/54/2013. According to the opposite parties the complainant is not the real consumer and the connection was obtained in the non domestic category. There is no exemption of water charges except for BPL card holders. The opposite party also contented that the water meter of the complainant was not working from 2009 onwards and the complainant was using water without the meter. Hence the real consumption cannot be assessed by the opposite party and the eligible amount cannot be realized from the complainant. According to the opposite party the complainant had retained the defective meter for a very long period and had consumed five times of water as shown in the meter reading. The opposite party also states that on 11/12/2009 the complainant approached with a new meter and obtained certificate but the said meter was not installed, since the meter replacement fees had not been paid. The contention of the complainant that he had replaced a new meter is absolutely false to misunderstand the forum. Complainant had consumed water till the date of disconnection by using the defective meter itself. Hence the meter reading taken during those periods had shown the same reading. The opposite party had issued the bill for an amount of Rs.7,59,165/- (Rupees Seven lakh fifty nine thousand one hundred and sixty five only) since the bill was printed in the computer by calculating interest and surcharge. Hence they had issued a new bill by calculating manually without including interest and surcharge for an amount of Rs.2,02,033/- (Rupees Two lakh two thousand thirty three only). The opposite party admits that they need not pay bill for an amount of Rs.7,59,165/-. Since the case was pending before the forum the opposite party had not disconnected the water connection and the complainant had also not applied for disconnection by paying the required disconnection fees. If the meter is not functioning the opposite party will issue bills as per the last slab consumed by the consumer. Accordingly 3032 KL slab was taken as the last slab in the case of the present complaint. Hence the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.6,722/- (Rupees Six thousand seven hundred and twenty two only) under domestic category as per the above slab. Opposite party had produced the last 4 slab consumed by the complainant which shows that the consumer had consumed water for an amount of Rs.6,722/- as per domestic category. The complainant alleges that the complainant is entitled to collect only minimum charges if no consumption is recorded as per the meter and it amounts to Rs.150/- per month. The rate of Rs.120/- is collected only in the case of non domestic connection, and for the domestic connections the minimum charge collected is only Rs.20/- per month. The complainant had obtained the connection under the non domestic slab in the year 1991 and had paid charges in the said category up to 2009. They had obtained an order in CC.54/13 by suppressing the above facts. The contention of the complainant that the opposite party is entitled to collect only minimum charges for a hostel occupied by so many inmates cannot be considered. The forum has directed to issue bill under the domestic tariff and accordingly the said bill was issued for an amount of Rs.2,02,033/- (Rupees Two lakh two thousand thirty three only). The above complaint was filed by suppressing the material facts and by misrepresentation. Meter reading was taken promptly as per the provision Water Supply Regulations Act. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and they had observed all the principles of natural justice before the issuing the above bill. The above complaint has to be dismissed.
Both complainant and opposite party filed chief affidavit Ext.A1-A4 was marked from the part of the complainant. And Ext.B1-B14 from the part of the opposite party. Evidence was closed and matter was heard. Complainant filed application for amendment as per the order in IA.187/2014 the complaint was amended and additional evidence was also adduced.
The issues that arises for consideration.
- Whether the bill issued by opposite party is liable to be cancelled as illegal?
- Whether the connection has to be restored?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite
party?
4. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?
ISSUES 1 & 2
The complainant filed CC/16/2010 and the same was allowed by declaring that complainant is a consumer and the hostel is running for commercial purpose. The verdict of the Forum had become final since it was not challenged. Then the complainant filed CC.54/2013 to cancel the bill issued by the opposite party for an amount of Rs.2,11,783/- (Rupees Two lakh Eleven thousand seven hundred and eighty three only) the same was also allowed and the forum directed the opposite party to issue a bill under domestic category without calculating interest and surcharges. The above litigation is going on from 2010 onwards. Complainant alleges that it was the duty of the opposite party to disconnect the water supply. Since there was no stay against disconnection. Opposite party alleges that the water meter was not functioning so they took average of Rs.6,972/- (Rupees Six thousand nine hundred and seventy two only) till Nov.2011 and the amount was calculated as per the last slab consumed by the complainant under the domestic tariff. The complainant alleges that the meter was replaced by them and it was functioning from December 2010 onwards. Admittedly the water connection was disconnected on 5/11/2011. The allegation of the complainant is that they are bound to pay only the minimum water charges of Rs.150/- per month. Since opposite party has not disconnected the water supply they are not bound to pay the charges up to 5/11/2011 since they had stopped using water from 2009 onwards. The opposite party alleges that complainant had to apply for disconnection by paying the required fees only then opposite party is bound to disconnect the water supply. Since the complainant had not paid the arrears for a long period they were forced to disconnect the water supply on 05/11/2011. According to the opposite party the proper consumption of the complainant cannot be assess since the meter was not replaced. As per Ext.B13 it is obvious the meter was not replaced and it was the same reading recorded on several dates. In such circumstances opposite party can assessed the water consumption only as per the previous six months reading recorded in the water meter at the time of functioning. The average consumption of the previous six months reading can be taken and a bill amount for the average consumption of the said amount under the domestic tariff can be issued by the opposite party to the complainant. The amount calculated as Rs.6,722/- for the whole period is not justifiable. Hence the bill issued dtd.20/09/2013 for an amount of Rs.2,02,033/- is hereby set aside and we direct the opposite party to issue a fresh bill by taking the average consumption for a period of previous six months for which the meter was functioning as per the domestic tariff without calculating interest and surcharges. The above complaint is allowed partly and we direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony. The opposite party shall issue the fresh bill within one month from the date of receipts of this order. Considering the facts and nature of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of December 2014
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/- Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- Photocopy of the order in C.C.54/2013 dtd 20/07/2013
Ext.A2-Original Letter.dtd 20/09/2013 of KWA, Palakkad to Womens Hostel, Kanjikode to obey the court order.
Ext.A3- Water bill of Womens Hostel Rs.7,59,165/- dtd.10/09/2013 (Original)
Ext.A4- Reply Letter of KWA , Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Manager, East Rotary Trust.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Ext.B1 –Letter dtd.05/02/2010 issued by KWA for the decision of revenue Adalath 2010
Ext.B2 –Order of CC/16/2010 dtd.28/06/2011
Ext.B3 –Order of CC/16/2010 dtd.17/11/2012
Ext.B4 - Letter dtd.25/02/2013 issued by KWA about court order No.CC/16/2010
Ext.B5- Letter dtd.15/01/2013 issued by KWA for obey the court order to B.Hari
Ext.B6- Lawyer notice of Adv.K.Sasidharan sent to Asst Exe.Engineer, KWA dtd.08/02/2013
Ext.B7- Reply notice of Asst. Exe.Engineer, KWA sent to Adv.K.Sasidharan dtd.15/02/2013
Ext.B8- Order of CC/54/2013 dtd.20/07/2013
Ext.B9- Letter dtd.20/09/2013 issued by KWA for obey the court order to Usha
Ext.B10- Consumer Ledger Print out
Ext.B11- KSEB Meter reading
Ext.B12- Govt.Order No.G.O.(P)No.65/98….. dtd.20/06/1998
Ext.B13-Meter reading Record
Ext.B14 – Regulations Slab
Witness marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost Allowed
No cost allowed.
