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. 344/2001Filed on 16.08.2001

Dated : 31.07.2009

Complainant :

Santha Kumari Amma P.M, residing at T.C 20/1301, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. V. Satheesh Kumar)

Opposite parties:

1. Assistant Engineer, Karamana Section, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Chief Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

Addl. Opposite party :

3. Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Jala Bhavan, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. C. Sasidharan Pillai & Santhamma Thomas)

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 07.04.2005, 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 06.06.2009, the Forum on 31.07.2009 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 vide consumer No. KMA/135/D, that complainant's family consists of only 4 members and complainant's house is having only 3 taps, that in the year 1991 opposite party issued provisional invoice card and monthly amount was fixed at Rs. 11/- only, that there was an arrear of Rs. 190/- upto 9/91 and that complainant effected the said payment without any fault. Subsequently the monthly amount was enhanced to Rs. 17/- with effect from 6/93 and again it was enhanced to Rs. 19/- with effect from 6/94. Complainant effected monthly remittance as per the revised rate without any fault. On April 1999, opposite party again revised the monthly water charge to Rs. 22/- with effect from 4/99. On 02.06.2001 1^st opposite party issued a bill to the complainant wherein the monthly charge was fixed at Rs. 32/-. In the said bill the arrears upto 5/01 is mentioned as Rs. 1,000/- and an amount of Rs. 8,974/- is accounted as adjustment. Complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for clarification of the said bill. The 1^st opposite party made correction in the bill and it was again enhanced to Rs. 20,617/- without assigning any reason. Further the monthly tariff was fixed at Rs. 798/- per month. The excess bill issued only due to the fault of the water authority. Opposite party has responsibility to convince the complainant the mode of assessment of water charge and the reason for the sudden increase. Opposite parties without conducting spot investigation issued the complainant a bill dated 13.11.2003 for an amount of Rs. 30,672/- arbitrarily including the petitioner in the non-domestic category, even though the complainant actually belongs to domestic category. This matter was already intimated to the opposite parties on several occasions, but they did not take any action to cancel the bill or to revise it. Hence this complaint to get a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the opposite parties from disconnecting the water connection availed by the complainant, to set aside the bills issued by water authority and to get such other reliefs.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that water charge is fixing as per the meter readings and not as per the family members. Initially the monthly charge was Rs. 11/- per month from 10/91 onwards and opposite party issued provisional invoice card as per the declaration of the complainant. As per meter readings there was arrear of Rs. 190/- upto 9/91 and a fresh provisional invoice card from 10/91 onwards was issued to the complainant. Changes in the monthly charge was as per the Government Orders. Old meter was not working which was replaced by the opposite party on 18.12.1997. As per the first meter reading average monthly consumption was found to be 85 KL. Complainant paid water charge for only upto 5/99 and water charge shown as Rs. 32/- is only for 10 KL and not according to the present meter reading. An amount of Rs. 8,974/- was arrived at as per the meter reading and adjustment bill was issued to that effect. When complainant approached the opposite parties, the opposite parties sent for testing the meter and as per the testing report the meter was 15% fast, so opposite parties revised the bill as per meter testing report. As per the existing rules if the party did not take any steps to remit the arrear bill within due date, opposite party has the right to disconnect the water connection at any time without further notice. Opposite party has to follow the existing rules strictly. Complaint has no cause of action. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bill dated 13.11.03 and subsequent bills cancelled?

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

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other reliefs?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P7 series marked. Opposite party has filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not produce any documents.

Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. KMA/135/D. It has been the case of the complainant that, the house of the complainant is having 3 taps, that in the year 1991 the 1^st opposite party after calculating the average water consumption issued the provisional invoice card (Ext. P1), that initial monthly amount was Rs. 11/-, that at the time of issuing the provisional invoice card as per opposite party, there was an arrear of Rs. 190/- upto 9/91, which was paid by the complainant without any fault, that subsequently the monthly amount was enhanced to Rs. 17/- with effect from 6/93 and again it was enhanced to Rs. 19/- with effect from 6/94, and that the monthly amount was again raised to Rs. 22/- with effect from 4/99. It has also been the case of the complainant that on 02.06.2001 opposite party had issued a bill wherein the monthly charge was fixed at Rs. 32/-. Ext. P2 is the bill dated 02.06.2001. As per Ext. P2 consumer class is 'domestic', meter status is 'working', opening meter reading is 1 KL and closing meter reading is 2536, average consumption from 18.12.1997 to 30.05.2001 is 48.1 KL. In Ext. P2 it is recorded arrears upto 6/01 is Rs. 1001, and adjustment is Rs. 8974/-, amount to be remitted is Rs. 10,007/- which is further seen corrected as Rs. 20,617/- in black ink. Ext. P3 is the bill dated 13.11.2003. It is seen recorded in Ext. P3 that previous reading is 3928 KL and average consumption is 413 KL, meter status is 'working', consumer class is non-domestic, due upto 8/03 is Rs. 28,908/-. Exts. P3 to P6 are bills dated 13.11.2003, 17.03.2004, 14.05.2004 and 02.07.2004. In Exts. P3 to P6, it is seen recorded that consumer class is 'non-domestic' meter status is 'working' and total amount payable changes from Rs. 30,672/- in Ext. P3 to Rs. 38,484/- in Ext. P6. It is pertinent to point out that as per Exts. P1 & P2 the consumer class is 'domestic' whereas as per Exts. P3 to P6 the consumer class is seen recorded as 'non-domestic'. It has been the case of the complainant that without conducting any spot investigation opposite party issued Ext. P3 bill including the consumer in the non-domestic category even though the connection was taken in domestic category. Further, complainant submits that even though this matter was brought to the notice of the opposite parties on several occasions, they did not take any action to cancel the said bill or revise it. Opposite party admitted the issuance of fresh provisional invoice card (Ext. P1) from 10/91 onwards. Submission by the opposite party is that the said Ext. P1 was issued by the opposite parties as per declaration of the consumer, that the old meter was non-working, which was replaced by the opposite party on 18.12.1997, and that as per the first meter reading average monthly consumption was found to be 85 KL on the basis of which opposite parties revised arrear as per declaration from 10/91 onwards. In the version it is seen stated that on 18.12.1997 meter reading was 0.7 KL, which rose to 2212 on 08.11.2000, and on 30.05.2001 meter reading was 2536 KL. As per Ext. P2 bill dated 02.06.2001 opening meter reading is 1 and closing meter reading is 2536. It is pertinent to be pointed out that as per version there was meter reading on 08.11.2000 under domestic category. If opposite parties had taken meter reading on 08.11.2000, they would have definitely issued a bill simultaneously or immediately thereafter. No such bill is seen issued by the opposite parties accordingly which would strengthen the case of the complainant that opposite parties had issued the bills without conducting any spot investigation. Further evidently by Exts. P1 & P2 the said connection was under domestic category, whereas the subsequent bills Exts. P3 to P6 are seen issued under non-domestic category. In the version nothing is mentioned by opposite parties regarding conversion of tariff from domestic to non-domestic category, nor does complainant have a case that she has applied for conversion from domestic to non-domestic. No materials furnished by opposite parties to show the reason for conversion from domestic to non-domestic category. In the absence of any evidence in favour of conversion of tariff, we find the conversion of tariff from domestic to non-domestic made by opposite parties was unilateral and against facts. As such Exts. P3 to P6 bills prepared on the basis of non-domestic tariff are devoid of bonafides. On a perusal of Ext. P1 complainant is seen remitted water charge directly to opposite parties upto 22.05.1999 as per provisional invoice card under domestic category. Exts. P7(a) to (g) show receipts issued by opposite parties. Submission by opposite parties is that when complainant approached opposite parties, water meter was sent for testing and as per the testing report, the meter is 15% fast, on the basis of which they revised the bill. Opposite parties did not file the testing report, whereas complainant's stand is that meter is working properly. If meter status is of non-working which will definitely reflect in the bills. In view of the foregoing discussions and in the light of evidence available on records, we are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid bills issued by opposite parties are not genuine which deserves to be cancelled. Complainant did not furnish document showing remittance of water charges after 5/99, nor did complainant have a case that she has not used water from the opposite parties. Taking into consideration of totality of circumstance we are of the opinion that justice will be well met if complainant is permitted to install a new water meter in the premises and on the basis of the average reading for three months, opposite parties should raise fresh bills under domestic category for the whole period retrospectively from 6/99 onwards.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The bill dated 13.11.2003 and subsequent bills issued by opposite parties are hereby cancelled. Complainant shall install a new water meter. Opposite party shall permit the consumer to install the same. After installation of the new meter, opposite party shall raise fresh bill under domestic tariff on the basis of average meter reading for three months for the whole period retrospectively from 6/99 onwards, after adjusting the amounts if any remitted by the complainant since 5/99. Complainant shall remit the bill amount in six equal monthly instalments commencing from the month of issuance of the fresh bill. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstance 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 31^st day of July 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 344/2001

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Provisional Invoice Card of Con.No. KMA 135 issued by KWA

P2 - Consumer Bill dated 02.06.2001 issued by KWA .

P3 - Consumer Bill dated 13.11.2003 issued by KWA .

P4 - Consumer Bill dated 17.03.2004 issued by KWA .

P5 - Consumer Bill dated 14.05.2004 issued by KWA .

P6 - Consumer Bill dated 02.07.2004 issued by KWA .

P7 (a)

to (g) - Copy of receipts issued by KWA.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT