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. 98/2005 Filed on 18/03/2005

Dated: 30..09..2010

Complainant:

Indira, w/o late Sudhakaran, Lal Sadhanam, Pulimkudi, Mulloor – P.O., Vizhinjam, Neyyattinkara (By Adv. J. Maya)

Opposite parties:

1. Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Kanjiramkulam, Neyyattinkara.

2. Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Divisional Office, Neyyattinkara.

3. Managing Director, KWA., Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. V.S. Hareendranath)

This O.P having been heard on 15..08..2010, the Forum on 30..09..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 the opposite parties vide consumer No. KP 1780, that the connection was given on 3/91, that the monthly charge of using water prior to 1996 was only Rs. 10/-, that thereafter monthly charge enhanced to Rs.22/- per month, that after on 8/8/1997 no bill has been issued to the complainant, that the connection was given in the name of complainant's husband Sudhakaran, who died on 15/3/2000, that on 28/12/2003 a bill was issued to the complainant for Rs.1,811/-, that on receipt of the bill complainant approached the opposite party's Office and prayed for installment payment and 1^st opposite party allowed to remit it in two installments, that 1^st installment of Rs. 1,000/- paid on 17/1/2004 and the 2^nd installment was not paid due to the accident met by the complainant on her leg, that 1^st opposite party issued another bill dated 12/1/2005 for Rs. 26,506/- towards water charges from 10/97 to 1/2005, that the bill was incorrect and baseless and without stating the meter reading therein, though complainant filed objection regarding the bill, opposite party did not respond positively and on 16/3/2003 without any information opposite party disconnected the connection. The action of the opposite party is illegal which has caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to restore the water connection, cancel the disputed bill and pay compensation with cost.

2. Opposite parties filed version contending inter alia that consumer remitted water charges upto 9/97 at the minimum rate, that complainant was a defaulter upto 9/96, that the connection was regularised on 9/96 after remitting the water charges from 3/91 to 9/97, that there was no remittance thereafter from the part of the consumer, that the bills were issued as per the rules and regulations of the Water Authority, that the charge was calculated for the actual quantity of water consumed by the complainant, that because of the non-payment of arrears of water charges the connection was disconnected after giving sufficient notice to the consumer, and that there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or costs from the opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get water connection restored?

    

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get notice dated 12/01/2005 cancelled?

    

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

    

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

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit, and has marked Exts. P1 to P7. In rebuttal, 1^st opposite party has filed affidavit. Opposite parties have not filed any documents.

4. Points (i) to (iv) : Admittedly, connection to consumer No. KP 1780 was given in the name of complainant's husband Sri. Sudhakaran and 1^st opposite party has issued a bill dated 12/1/2005 to the consumer for Rs. 26,506/- towards water charges from 10/97 to 1/2005. It has been the case of the complainant that her husband died on 15/3/2000 and thereafter she alone has been using the water. It has also been the case of the complainant that on 28/12/2003 a bill dated 23/6/2003 was given to the complainant for Rs. 1,811/-, that on request of the complainant, opposite party allowed her to remit it by installments and accordingly she remitted Rs. 1,000/- on 17/1/2004, that she could not remit the remaining amount due to her accident sustained on leg. It has also been the case of the complainant that opposite parties issued another bill dated 12/1/2005 for Rs.26,506/- towards water charges from 10/97 to 1/2005 wherein she was instructed to remit the said bill amount within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice/bill. According to her, the second bill issued by the opposite party is incorrect and baseless and the amount claimed is exorbitant. Complainant submits further that at the time of remittance of Rs.1,000/- as per bill dated 23/6/2003, opposite party promised her to cancel the disputed bill and issue another correct bill, that instead of issuing another corrected bill, opposite party disconnected the water connection and removed the water meter on 16/3/2003 without any information. It is rebutted by opposite parties that complainant remitted water charges upto 9/97 at the minimum rate; that the consumer was a defaulter upto 9/96, that the connection was regularised on 9/96 after remitting the water charges from 3/91 to 9/97, that thereafter there was no remittance from the part of consumer. Ext. P1 is the Provisional Invoice Card. On perusal of Ext. P1 it is seen that monthly amount to be remitted is Rs. 19/- from 6/1994 and as per payment schedule printed overleaf of Ext. P1 complainant remitted water charges upto 9/97. Ext. P2 is the bill dated 23/6/2003 for Rs.1,811/-. A perusal of Ext. P2 reveals that billing period is upto 6/2003, but the columns regarding present reading, previous reading, quantity consumed etc.....are kept blank. As regards the details of amount to be remitted, it is seen stated in Ext. P2 that arrears due (period from 10/97 to 6/2003) is Rs. 1,464/-, penalty and fine is Rs. 3,451/- and other charges: Rs.2, totalling to Rs.1,811/-. Ext. P3 is the receipt for Rs.1,000/- dated 17/1/2004 issued by the opposite parties. Ext. P4 is the notice dated 9/5/2003 issued by opposite parties to consumer No. KP 1780 informing him about the violation of the Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulation. On perusal of Ext. P4, it is seen stated that consumer has committed default in payment of water charges from 10/97 onwards, and that due to water meter being situated in a polluted condition it would have been impossible for opposite parties to test the meter and measure the meter reading. It is seen informed the consumer as per Ext. P4 notice that he should contact opposite parties' office and cure the aforesaid defects, failing which water connection will be disconnected without further notice. Ext. P5 is the notice dated 12/1/2005 issued by opposite parties to consumer stating that he has not paid Rs.26,506/- towards water charges from 10/97 to 1/2005 as per bill and Provisional Invoice Card within time allowed, that water supply will be cut off from the said premises after 7 days of Ext. P5 notice served upon him. Ext. P6 is the copy of the application addressed to Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Neyyattinkara by the complainant stating that she alone is residing in her house, that she has not used too much water as claimed by opposite parties, that she gets water in the pipe only two or three days per week and that the bill amount is false and exorbitant and requested opposite parties to cancel it and issue a corrected bill. Ext. P7 is the copy of the letter addressed to Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority stating that she had remitted Rs.1,000/- on 19/3/2005 as per interim order in O.P. No.98/2005 but connection was not restored and requested him to take urgent steps to restore the same. On a perusal of Ext. P7, it is seen that on 21/3/2005, Assistant Engineer concerned ordered to reconnect the connection with new meter. Though the 1^st opposite party has filed counter affidavit, no documents furnished to substantiate the contention in the version. It is pertinent to point out that as per Ext. P2 bill dated 23/6/2003 complainant was directed to pay Rs.1,811/- towards arrears due (period from 10/97 to 6/2003), out of which she had remitted Rs.1000/- vide Ext. P3 dated 17/1/2004. Thereafter, opposite party had issued notice on 12/1/2005 for Rs.26,506/- towards water charges from 10/97 to 1/2005. No documents furnished by opposite parties to show how they arrived at such calculation nor did opposite parties mention meter reading. But it is seen averred in the version that the water charge bills were issued as per the readings and actual consumption and bills were issued as per the Rules and Regulations of the Water Authority. The onus is on the part of opposite parties to show that consumer has used too much water so as to claim the amount vide Ext. P4. Issuance of water bills without meter reading will harass the consumer, disconnection of water connection on the basis of inflated bill without mentioning water reading therein would definitely cause irreparable injury to the consumer. It will definitely encroach the fundamental right of the consumer to get pure drinking water and will be against the principles of natural justice. It is astonished to see that a consumer, who was asked to pay Rs.1,811/- towards water charges for the period from 10/97 to 6/2003, had paid Rs.1,000/- on 17/1/2004, and prayed for payment of balance amount of Rs. 811/-, was again asked by way of notice to pay Rs.26,506/- for water charges without giving any details therein, will definitely harass and vex the consumer. After issuing Ext. P5 notice, complainant approached this Forum and this Forum directed her to pay Rs.1,000/- and opposite party was directed to receive the same and reconnect the water connection and accordingly both parties complied the order. In view of the foregoing discussions and evidence available on records, we are of the considered opinion that Ext. P5 notice dated 12/1/2005 was issued by opposite parties without disclosing any details. No records available to us to show meter reading, if any, and assess the pattern of monthly consumption by the complainant. The opposite parties failed to establish the genuineness of the Ext. P5 notice. In view of the above we find Ext. P5 is not genuine which deserves to be cancelled. Opposite party is directed to collect water charge as per Ext. P1 Provisional Invoice Card.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Ext. P5 notice dated 12/1/2005 issued by opposite party is cancelled. Opposite parties shall collect water charge as per Provisional Invoice Card upto the date of disconnection, thereafter opposite parties shall collect water charge as per actual consumption on the basis of meter reading.The Interim Order to restore water connection is made absolute. In facts and circumstance of the case there is no compensation. 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 30^th day of September, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI. A.,

MEMBER.

S.K. SREELA ,

MEMBER.

ad.

C.C.No.98/2005

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Provisional Invoice Card

P2 : Original Bill No. 128 dated 23/6/2003

P3 : Original receipt dated 17/1/2004

P4 : " notice dated 9/5/2003

P5 : " notice dated 12/01/2005

P6 : Copy of letter dated 13/3/2005 addressed to opposite party.

P7 : " letter dated 21/3/2005 addressed to opposite party.

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT.