SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction against the OP to refund of Rs.23010/- paid by the complainant, which he had paid on 17/3/2018 with interest @18% and also pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant .
Complaint in brief :-
According to the complaint, complainant got right over the property through a deed executed by deceased Saradha. The complainant says that he is a consumer of OP and he is regularly paying water charges to OP with a consumer No.4212103758. As per complainant normal usage fees usually come less than Rs.350/-. But on 26/10/2017, complainant received a demand notice which the reading was shown as 401 KL for bimonthly consumption and water charge shown as Rs.7720/- in Bill No.3038685858, where as in the same bill the reading on 22/8/2017 was shown as 143 for consumption of 29 units. Thereafter , on 22/12/2017 complainant got a bill No. 32022255 shown the amount as Rs.7556/-. Further more, on 21/2/2018, complainant received another bill claiming a total amount of Rs.23010/- which the complainant was constrained to pay on 17//3/2018, complainant paid the entire amount as claimed by OP which unreal and exorbitant . Even though the meter was disconnected, the meter reading was shown with a similar reading as it is in 21/2/2018. Hence, the complainant firmly believes that there is laxity from the part of OP for which complainant constrained to pay a huge amount for water charges which he was not consumed. Hence this complaint.
After filing the complaint, commission sent notice to OP. OP entered appearance before the commission and filed their version accordingly .
Version of OP in brief:
The OP denies all averments except those specifically admitted . The OP denies the derivation of the property, complainant is a consumer of OP, exorbitant charges collected by OP etc. As per OP, their official record shows that complainant is not a consumer of Kerala Water Authority and the water connection bearing consumer No.TLK/2305/D belongs to one deceased Saradha. The complainant made an averment that he purchased the property in the year 1999 but so far he hasn’t taken any steps to change the said water connection. Moreover, OP contended that complainant had rented his 1st and 2nd floor. The consumer was charged at the rate of Rs.20/- for past few years. The OP contended that the water meter was stolen in the year 2016 and the same was replaced by deceased Saradha. After the death of Saradha, complainant illegally used water service of OP. After the replacement of meter, the bimonthly reading was recorded as 5KL, 61 KL,114KL,401KL consecutively throughout the year 2016 to 2017. On 21/2/2016 a bill was saved on complainant for an amount of Rs.23,010/- which includes arrears, average water charge ie , Rs.7724/- and fine. Moreover, the revenue billing system were generated and printed and will be served of needed. And, if the water charge already remitted by consumer is found is excess, the OP will adjust the amount is subsequent billings and hence there is no deficiency in service from the part of OP and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Due to the rival contentions raised by the OP to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues accordingly.
- Whether the complainant is a consumer of OP?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of OP?
- Whether there is any compensation & cost to the complainant?
In order to answer the issues, the commission called evidence from both parties. The complainant produced documents which is marked as Exts.A1 to A10. Ext.A1 is the photocopy of Title Deed No. 1032/1999( After that complainant produced certified copy of the document No.1032/1999 of SRO Kathirur), Ext.A2 is the Demand Disconnection Notice issued by OP dtd.5/6/2017, Ext.A3 is the receipt dtd.5/8/2017, Ext.A4 is the demand disconnection notice issued by OP dtd.18/8/2017. Ext.A5 is the receipt dtd.29/8/2017, Exts.A6 to A8 are the demand disconnection notice issued by OP dtd.26/10/2017,22/12/2017,21/2/2018, Ext.A9 is the receipt issued by OP dtd.17/3/2018 and Ext.A10 is the letter from the Manager, Bank of Baroda. The complainant adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as PW1. OP has no oral or documentary evidence. Both side submit notes of argument.
Issue No.1:
In order to answer issue No.1, the commission perused Ext.A1 which is executed by one deceased Saradha to complainant in the year 1999 vide document 1032/1999 of SRO Kathirur. In the said document, the transferor reserved life interest in the house until her death. The transferor died in the year 2011. In the version , OP stated that the meter was stolen in the year 2016 and it was replaced and the water charge was collected all these years. Being the beneficiary of deceased Saradha, the complainant is a consumer of OP. Hence issue No.1 answered accordingly.
Issue No.2&3:
The commission looked into the documents produced by parties to answer Issue No2&3. From the side of OP they have no oral or documentary evidence. On the perusal of Exts.A3&A5, it is seen that Rs.320/-, Rs.500/- respectively paid as water charge in the month of August 2017. As per Ext.A8, an amount of Rs.23010/- was demanded and as per Ext.A9, it was seen as paid. The OP had never tried to explain the criteria of calculation of amount described in Ext.A6. The OP made an averment that if an excessive amount is collected, then it will be adjusted in next month fare and also stated the calculation made is based on previous fares. If it is so, the bimonthly water fare collected is minimal during previous months. But as per Ext.A8 the amount for unpaid fare and its fine, OP charged Rs.23010/-. During the cross-examination of complainant he also admitted that he hadn’t paid water charges of 6 months. To the surprise, there is no method or explanation stated by OP that how they calculated and reached to such a big amount. Moreover, OP stated that meter was stolen in the year 2016 and they replaced it and also OP contended that complainant had stolen the service of OP. The OP also stated that Saradha who was their consumer and she died in the year 2011.If it is so, then why the complainant is entitled to pay the water charges of 6 months which was in due ie, from August 2017 to February 2018 at the rate Rs.750/- bimonthly including fine Hence the commission came into a conclusion that there is deficiency in service from the side of OP by collecting such a huge amount stated in Ext.A8 without proper explanation.
Complainant is entitled to get compensation due to the deficiency in service from the part of OP.
In the result complaint is allowed in part, the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.20760/- to complainant which is the balance amount after deducting the reasonable fare ie Rs.2250/- towards the six months charges of water usage by complainant, the above said amount was calculated by the commission on the basis of previous calculation as per Ext.A3&A5 bills and also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order. Failing which complainant is at liberty to file execution application against opposite party as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1-Photocopy of the Title Deed
A2,A4 - Demand Disconnection Notice issued by OP dtd.5/6/2017,18/8/17,
A3,A5,A9-Receipt issued by OP dtd.5/8/17,29/8/17,17/3/2018
A6 to A8 - Demand Disconnection Notice issued by OP dtd 26/10/17,22/12/17,21/2/18
A10- Letter from the Manager, Bank of Baroda.
PW1-venugopalan.A- complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
