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. 450/2004 Filed on 04/12/2004

Dated: 31..10..2009

Complainant:

Nabeezathu Beevi, T.C.27/73, Rishimangalam, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. N. Binu)

Opposite parties:

1. The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. The Asst. Exe. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Pattoor Section, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

(By Adv. Santhamma thomas)

This O.P having been heard on 30..10..2009, the Forum on 31..10..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.PT/1660/D in the premises of the property owned by Mr. R.R. Ramesh and the said property was purchased by her husband by virtue of sale deed No. 1500 executed in the year 1976, that after the expiry of her husband the said property containing the said water connection devolved on her and she is in the possession and enjoyment of the same, that the said connection still stands in the name of Sri. R.R. Ramesh, that she has been regularly paying water charges from time to time on the basis of bills preferred by opposite parties and that the above said connection is under domestic category. It is submitted by the complainant that she has been consuming 18kl per month over the years and her children are abroad and hence there is no enhanced consumption of the water. There is no indication regarding any outstanding amount against the said consumer number in all the bills preferred by opposite parties, that in all the bills issued by the opposite paties the arrear is noted as negative, this being the position, opposite parties issued a bill for Rs.9,004/- for the period from 5/03 to 2/04, that the claim made as per the said bill is utterly false and wrong, that there is no reason for claiming exorbitant amount. Complainant requested the opposite parties to inspect the meter and to replace the meter as it is found faulty and to charge exact amount as per the meter reading , but opposite parties did not respond it. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to cancel the bill dated 27/3/2004 for Rs. 9,004/- and to inspect the meter and to replace it if found faulty and pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation.

2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the consumer No. PT/1660/D stands in the name of Mr. R.R. Ramesh, that the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint, that the consumer has paid Rs.46/- per month till June 2004 on the basis of P.I.C rate of 18 kl. Rs. 8,545/- in the excess bill from February 1995 to February 2004 which has to be paid by the consumer. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 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 the bill dated 27/3/2004 cancelled?

    

2. Whether complainant is entitled to replacement of faulty meter with new one?

    

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

4. In support of the claim, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed counter affidavit, opposite party did not file any documents.

5. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, consumer No.PT/1660/D stands in the name of Shri. R.R. Ramesh. It has been the case of the complainant that the property in respect of which the said water connection was installed was purchased by the husband of the complainant vide sale deed No.1500 of 1976 and that after the expiry of her husband the said property is in the possession and enjoyment of the complainant. It has also been the case of the complainant that she has been regularly paying the water charges consumed by her on the basis of bills preferred by opposite parties. It is argued by the complainant that she has been consuming 18kl per month over the years and her children are abroad and complainant alone is residing in the said house. Ext. P1 is the copy of consumer bill dated 1/7/2003 wherein the name of the consumer is Ramesh. R.R, consumption category is domestic and status of the meter is not working. A perusal of Ext.P1 would reveal that previous reading as on 6/5/2002 was 168kl whereas present reading not seen recorded, remittances made from 1/6/2003 to 30/6/2003 was Rs.184/-, monthly water charge mentioned was Rs.46/-. As regards due upto 4/03 was Rs. (-276/-) and amount payable was Rs.(-184/-), and there was excess amount of Rs.184/- with opposite party. Ext.P2 is the copy of the bill dated 1/9/03. As per Ext.P2; present reading as on 2/7/03 recorded is 4124kl, average consumption is 18 kl, due upto 6/03 is Rs. (-184), amount payable is Rs.92/- and there is an excess amount of Rs.92/-. Ext.P3 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 1/11/2003. As per Ext.P3 status of meter is not working, present reading as on 2/9/03 is 4245kl. Adjustment amount is zero. Ext.P4 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 1/1/04 wherein meter status is not working – which is evident from previous reading of 4245 kl and present reading of 4130. As per Ext.P4, dues upto 10/03 is zero. Water charges for the period from 11/03 to 12/03 is Rs.92/-. Adjustment amount is zero. Ext. P5 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 27/3/04. As per Ext.P5 remittance made from 1/6/03 to 6/3/04 is Rs.552/-, status of meter is working, previous reading mentioned is 4245kl whereas present reading is 4399kl. A perusal of Ext.P5 reveals dues upto 4/03 is Rs.7,256/- and water charges from 5/03 to 2/04 is Rs.1,558/-. Adjustment amount due to excess/shortfall consumption is Rs.190, and amount payable is Rs.9,004/-. On going through Exts.P1 to P5, it is evident that the meter reading had varied from 168kl on 6/5/02 to 4124kl on 2/7/03, which rose to 4245kl on 2/9/03, which further fell to 4130 on 3/11/03 again rose to 4399kl on 26/1/04. From the pattern of meter reading itself it is clear that meter is non working. Further it is to be noted that there was no dues upto 10/03 vide Ext. P4 dated 1/11/03. It remains uncertain how dues upto 4/03 appeared in Ext.P5 bill dated 27/3/04. As per Ext.P5 there is dues upto 4/03 of Rs.7,256/-. If there were dues, it would definitely have reflected in former bills issued at regular intervals. No such dues have been recorded in the former bills. Opposite parties did not furnish any documents to show how such arrears have occurred in Ext.P5. Onus of proving such dues would rest on the opposite parties who raised such dues. Exts. P6 and P7 are receipts dated 27/1/04 issued by opposite parties. Ext.P8 is the copy of the notice dated 27/7/04 sent to 2^nd opposite party. It is through Ext.P8 itself complainant has informed opposite parties that there is no arrear outstanding against her and she is prompt in payment of water charges as and when bills received. Opposite parties have no case that complainant is a defaulter in payment of water charges, nor do opposite parties have a case that they have demanded complainant to remit arrears prior to Ext.P5. In view of the above we find there is no base in Ext.P5 bill which deserves to be cancelled. It is further to be noted that still water connection stands in the name of former owner of the property. Complainant has to transfer water connection to her name. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that, first of all complainant has to transfer the water connection from the former owner to the present owner as required by the provision relating to Water Supply Regulations, and after transferring the connection to present consumer, the present owner (consumer) has to install new water meter in the place of faulty meter at consumer's own cost after verification of the authenticity of the new meter by the opposite parties.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Consumer bill dated 27/3/2004 issued to consumer No.PT/1660/D by opposite party is hereby cancelled. Complainant shall transfer the water connection to the name of present consumer in accordance with the provisions of Water Supply Regulations. After transferring water connection to the present consumer, opposite party shall permit the present consumer to replace the existing faulty meter with a new one at consumer's own cost.

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 October, 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

O.P.No. 450/2004

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Photocopy of bill No.7 dated 1/7/2003

P2 : " 57 dated 1/9/2003

P3 : " 96 dated 1/11/2003

P4 : " 133 dated 1/1/2004

P5 : " 191 dated 27/3/2004

P6 : " receipt No.H-136319 dated 27/1/2004.

P7 : " H-136320 dated 27/1/2004

P8 : Copy of letter dated 27/7/2004 issued to opposite parties by the complainant.

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT