IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 75/2012 (Filed on 09.04.2012)
Between:
The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Pathanamthitta Branch. … Complainant.
(By Adv. P.D. Varghese)
And:
Assistant Executive Engineer,
P.H. Sub Division,
Kerala Water Authority,
Pathanamthitta P.O.,
Pathanamthitta.
(N.K. Chandrasekharan Nair) … Opposite party.
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he is the Branch Manager of the National Insurance Company Ltd., Pathanamthitta and the water connection of the opposite party vide consumer No.3123/ND/PTA is using by the complainant. The complainant is not a defaulter for water charges. While so, the complainant received a demand notice from the opposite party for water charges for ` 31,091 for a period from 11/2010 to 07/2011. The water charge for the last 6 years from 2005 to 2010 varies from ` 424 to ` 4,016 and this will show the average water charges paid by the complainant. So the demand for ` 31,091 for 9 months is not legal and the opposite party had committed mistake in issuing the said demand notice.
3. On getting the said demand notice, the complainant sent a reply dated 22.08.2011 stating that the complainant is not liable to pay the said amount. The complainant being a central government undertaking office having only 6 employees and having only 5 working days in a week and that too from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. There is no circumstance to consume water for such a bill for 9 months. Thereafter also the complainant is in receipt of another demand notice dated 22.03.2012 on 03.04.2012 for ` 64,816 without furnishing the details of the amount, demanding the payment within 7 days. In the said notice, it is also intimated that if the amount is not paid within 7 days, the water connection will be disconnected. The opposite party has no right to demand such a huge amount without any details and the opposite party did not care to furnish any details in spite of the reply notice sent by the complainant. The above said acts of the opposite party is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for setting aside the demand notice dated 22.03.2012 for ` 64,816 issued by the opposite party along with cost of this complaint.
4. Opposite party entered appearance and filed their version with the following contentions: Opposite party denied that the water connection referred by the complainant is not provided to the complainant and the said connection is in the name of P.M. Mathews. The said consumer had remitted the water charges only upto 10/2010 at the rate of ` 127 per month. The consumption of water in the said connection from 26.10.2010 to 27.04.2011 was 894 Kiloliter and hence the average monthly consumption is 149 Kiloliter. So a bill for ` 31,091 was prepared on the basis of the actual consumption and was sent to the consumer which was not remitted. The status of the consumer, number of employees and the working hours are not the criteria for issuing water charge bills. The only criteria for preparing bill for water charge is the actual consumption. As the complainant has not remitted the first bill, instead of disconnecting the water connection, opposite party also issued 2 other bills on 15.11.2011 for ` 48,006 and on 22.02.2012 for ` 64,816. All these bills are prepared on the basis of the actual consumption and the complainant is liable to remit the bills as per the norms of the opposite party. The power of the opposite party for disconnection in default, is not effected so far only on humanitarian ground. According to the opposite party, what all acts done by them are legal and as per the norms of the opposite party and hence there is no deficiency of service from their part. With the above contentions, opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of the complainant consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2. Opposite party has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence and they have not even cross examined PW1. After closure of evidence, both sides filed argument notes and they were heard.
6. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that they were served with a bill for ` 31,091 on 17.08.2011 alleging that they have consumed water for such an amount during 11/10 to 07/2011. According to the complainant, they have not consumed such quantity of water and as per the previous bills for the last 6 years also shows that their consumption is very low when compared to the present bill. Therefore, they sent a letter to the opposite party for looking into the matter and for issuing the correct bill. Instead, opposite party issued another bill for ` 64,816 on 03.04.2012. The said bills are without any details and are illegal and the complainant is not liable to pay any amount as demanded by them and hence they argued that the impugned bill is liable to be set aside.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 2 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is the copy of the notice dated 22.08.2011 issued to the opposite party by the complainant. Ext. A2 is the demand-cum-disconnection notice dated 22.03.2012 for ` 64,816 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant.
8. In this case, even though the opposite party filed a version, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour or even cross examined PW1. But they have filed an argument note.
9. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and the opposite party had issued a demand-cum-disconnection notice for ` 64,816 vide Ext. A2. The question to be considered is whether Ext. A2 demand-cum-disconnection notice is legally sustainable or not? On a perusal of Ext. A2, it is seen that the opposite party has not furnished any details of the demanded amount. As per Ext. A1, the proof affidavit of the complainant and the argument note of the opposite party, the impugned bill is issued for the consumption of water by the complainant from 11/2010 to 07/2011 i.e. for a period of 9 months. But as per the details furnished by the complainant, their water charge for the previous 6 years is very low when compared to the impugned bill.
10. In the absence of any cogent evidence from the side of the opposite party for proving the contentions of the opposite party and for disproving the contentions of the complainant, we are constrained to accept the contentions of the complainant that the impugned bill is illegal and they are not liable to pay the said bill amount. In the circumstances, the issuance of Ext. A2 bill is found as an illegal act of the opposite party and the above said act is found to be a deficiency in service. Therefore, this complaint is allowable and the impugned bill is liable to be set aside.
11. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby Ext. A2 demand-cum-disconnection notice dated 22.03.2012 is hereby set aside and the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the above said amount of ` 1,000 with 9% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
12. However, the complainant is liable to pay the unpaid water charges, if any, for their actual consumption for which the opposite party can issue a revised bill on the basis of the actual consumption of the complainant after ensuring the correctness of the water meter installed in the premises of the complainant.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of September, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : P. Thulaseedharan Pillai.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of the notice dated 22.08.2011 issued to the
opposite party for the complainant.
A2 : Demand-cum-disconnection notice dated 22.03.2012 for `
64,816 issued by the opposite party in the name of the
complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Pathanamthitta Branch.
(2) Assistant Executive Engineer, P.H. Sub Division,
Kerala Water Authority, Pathanamthitta P.O.,
Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Stock File.
