KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 322/2010
JUDGMENT DATED 31.12.2010
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPELLANT
The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
P.H. Sub Division, Angamaly,
Ernakulam.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. C. Sudheesh Kumar,
Adv. Sri. Reghukumar & associates)
Vs
RESPONDENT
Bharathan,
S/o Balakrishna Menon,
Usha Nivas, Kanjoor Kara
Vadakkumbhagam Village,
Aluva, Ernakulam
(Rep. by Adv. Smt. Maya R.Mani)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The order dated 16.3.2010 of CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C. 247/2009 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite party. As per the impugned order the complaint is allowed and it is ordered that the complainant is not necessarily liable to pay the amount as demanded by the opposite party.
The case of the complainant is that he is the beneficiary of water connection bearing No. K.J. 257 which stands in favour of his mother. He has alleged that on 18.12.2008 the opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 4,821/- for a period of 33 months and he is not liable to pay the said amount. It is also alleged that his connection was disconnected on 5.11.2008 without any notice. The complainant is further informed that he is liable to pay Rs. 7,192/- as on 2.2.2009. Submitting that he is not liable to pay the said amount the complaint is filed praying for directions to take appropriate action against the opposite party in issuing the said bills.
The opposite party resisted the complainant by filing version wherein it was contended that a new meter was installed on 15.11.2005 and readings once in every six months, were taken and the bills were issued as per the readings recorded in the replaced meter. It was also submitted that in February, 2007, the complainant ought to have remitted Rs. 1,828/- and the amount already remitted by the complainant had been deducted. The amount was Rs. 1,072/- as in 2/2007 and the subsequent charges were also calculated as per the readings recorded in the meter. Contenting that the disconnection was also effected after issuing disconnection notice on 12.8.2008, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as Pw1 and Exts. A1 to A2 on his side. On the side of the opposite parties, Ext. B1 to B3 were marked. It is based on the said evidence that the Forum below passed the impugned order .
Heard both sides.
The learned counsel for the appellant /opposite party submitted before us that the Forum below had gone wrong in canceling the bills issued to the complainant as it contained charges for the water actually consumed by the complainant and as per meter readings taken from time to time. He has also submitted that after replacement of the meter on 15.1.2005 the opposite party had been taking meter readings once in every six months and as per readings the complainant ought to have remitted Rs. 1,828/- as in February, 2007 and deducting the amount of Rs. 756/- the complainant had to remit Rs. 1072/- and as the complainant did not pay any amount from 2/07, the opposite party issued a disconnection notice on 5.11.2008 and as per directions of the Forum below, the service was reconnected on 24.5.2009. It is argued by him that the complainant’s stand that he is not liable to pay charges for the actual consumption recorded in the meter cannot be supported and he canvassed for the position that the bills issued by the opposite parties have to be upheld and the complaint dismissed.
On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued before us that the obstinate attitude of the opposite party is against law, ethics and principles of rational justice. It is her very case that the complainant had cleared all the dues up to 2/2006 and had paid the water charges in advance up to 2/2007. She had invited our attitudes to Ext. A1 and A2 in support of her such contentions. She had raised a case that the opposite party had never given any disconnection notice to the complainant and the production of Ext. B2 claiming to be the copy of disconnection notice is a fabricated one and hence can not be accepted as it is not properly proved before the Forum. She had argued that apart from filing such a notice the opposite party has not cared to enter the box and give evidence before the Forum. Though it is admitted by the learned counsel that the complainant had not made any remittance towards water charges from 2/2007, it is her case that it was the opposite party who refused to accept the charges saying that there is huge arrears in the consumer’s account. It is also her case that even on 18.12.2010 the meter reading is only 1895.471 for a period of nearly six years which would negative the claim of the opposite party that the complainant had consumed so much of water warranting the demand of huge amounts towards water charges.
At the time of hearing the appellant/opposite party was present and we obtained some clarifications from the Asst. Executive Engineer also. On going through the details produced by the appellant we find that as per the office records, certain readings are furnished and it is based on the said readings that the claims are made. However apart from the said details kept by the opposite party in their office, there is no evidence to show that the said details are true and correct. If the opposite party had taken meter readings as claimed, why they have failed in issuing the additional bills then and there is a question un answered by the opposite party . Though it is stated that disconnection notice was issued as per Ext. B2, there is no supporting evidence to show that such notice was issued to the complainant. The complainant/respondent had disputed the issue of the said disconnection notice and he had given evidence before the Forum as Pw1 inspite of his physical incapacities and ailments. It seems that the opposite party had taken a casual attitude in contesting the matter before the Forum. It is also to be noted that the opposite party had submitted before us that the present rate from 12/2008 to 12/2010 is only at the rate of Rs. 22/- per month based on the consumption pattern. At the same time we find that the complainant had not paid any charges from 2/2007 though he would contend that the opposite party was not accepting the charges. Taking the facts and circumstances as a whole into consideration, we are of the opinion that the complainant is liable to pay charges @ Rs. 22/- per month from 3/2007 to 12/2010. The appellant is also directed to cancel the bill dated 18.12.2008 for Rs. 4,821/- and other bills, if any issued thereafter. Though we find deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/appellant in not issuing additional bills at the appropriate time, we are not inclined to award any compensation or costs since the complainant is also at fault in not remitting charges from 3/2007 on wards. It is also noted that though the complainant had submitted that the opposite party was not accepting the charges, he had not resorted to remit the charges by paying the same through money order or by any other means.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications indicated above. Thereby the opposite party is entitled to realize water charges @ Rs. 22/- per month from 3/2007 to 12/2010 with the usual penal charges for monthly payments applicable to domestic consumers. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
JUSTICE. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ST
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 322/2010
JUDGMENT DATED 31.12.2010
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPELLANT
The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
P.H. Sub Division, Angamaly,
Ernakulam.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. C. Sudheesh Kumar,
Adv. Sri. Reghukumar & associates)
Vs
RESPONDENT
Bharathan,
S/o Balakrishna Menon,
Usha Nivas, Kanjoor Kara
Vadakkumbhagam Village,
Aluva, Ernakulam
(Rep. by Adv. Smt. Maya R.Mani)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The order dated 16.3.2010 of CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C. 247/2009 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite party. As per the impugned order the complaint is allowed and it is ordered that the complainant is not necessarily liable to pay the amount as demanded by the opposite party.
The case of the complainant is that he is the beneficiary of water connection bearing No. K.J. 257 which stands in favour of his mother. He has alleged that on 18.12.2008 the opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 4,821/- for a period of 33 months and he is not liable to pay the said amount. It is also alleged that his connection was disconnected on 5.11.2008 without any notice. The complainant is further informed that he is liable to pay Rs. 7,192/- as on 2.2.2009. Submitting that he is not liable to pay the said amount the complaint is filed praying for directions to take appropriate action against the opposite party in issuing the said bills.
The opposite party resisted the complainant by filing version wherein it was contended that a new meter was installed on 15.11.2005 and readings once in every six months, were taken and the bills were issued as per the readings recorded in the replaced meter. It was also submitted that in February, 2007, the complainant ought to have remitted Rs. 1,828/- and the amount already remitted by the complainant had been deducted. The amount was Rs. 1,072/- as in 2/2007 and the subsequent charges were also calculated as per the readings recorded in the meter. Contenting that the disconnection was also effected after issuing disconnection notice on 12.8.2008, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as Pw1 and Exts. A1 to A2 on his side. On the side of the opposite parties, Ext. B1 to B3 were marked. It is based on the said evidence that the Forum below passed the impugned order .
Heard both sides.
The learned counsel for the appellant /opposite party submitted before us that the Forum below had gone wrong in canceling the bills issued to the complainant as it contained charges for the water actually consumed by the complainant and as per meter readings taken from time to time. He has also submitted that after replacement of the meter on 15.1.2005 the opposite party had been taking meter readings once in every six months and as per readings the complainant ought to have remitted Rs. 1,828/- as in February, 2007 and deducting the amount of Rs. 756/- the complainant had to remit Rs. 1072/- and as the complainant did not pay any amount from 2/07, the opposite party issued a disconnection notice on 5.11.2008 and as per directions of the Forum below, the service was reconnected on 24.5.2009. It is argued by him that the complainant’s stand that he is not liable to pay charges for the actual consumption recorded in the meter cannot be supported and he canvassed for the position that the bills issued by the opposite parties have to be upheld and the complaint dismissed.
On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued before us that the obstinate attitude of the opposite party is against law, ethics and principles of rational justice. It is her very case that the complainant had cleared all the dues up to 2/2006 and had paid the water charges in advance up to 2/2007. She had invited our attitudes to Ext. A1 and A2 in support of her such contentions. She had raised a case that the opposite party had never given any disconnection notice to the complainant and the production of Ext. B2 claiming to be the copy of disconnection notice is a fabricated one and hence can not be accepted as it is not properly proved before the Forum. She had argued that apart from filing such a notice the opposite party has not cared to enter the box and give evidence before the Forum. Though it is admitted by the learned counsel that the complainant had not made any remittance towards water charges from 2/2007, it is her case that it was the opposite party who refused to accept the charges saying that there is huge arrears in the consumer’s account. It is also her case that even on 18.12.2010 the meter reading is only 1895.471 for a period of nearly six years which would negative the claim of the opposite party that the complainant had consumed so much of water warranting the demand of huge amounts towards water charges.
At the time of hearing the appellant/opposite party was present and we obtained some clarifications from the Asst. Executive Engineer also. On going through the details produced by the appellant we find that as per the office records, certain readings are furnished and it is based on the said readings that the claims are made. However apart from the said details kept by the opposite party in their office, there is no evidence to show that the said details are true and correct. If the opposite party had taken meter readings as claimed, why they have failed in issuing the additional bills then and there is a question un answered by the opposite party . Though it is stated that disconnection notice was issued as per Ext. B2, there is no supporting evidence to show that such notice was issued to the complainant. The complainant/respondent had disputed the issue of the said disconnection notice and he had given evidence before the Forum as Pw1 inspite of his physical incapacities and ailments. It seems that the opposite party had taken a casual attitude in contesting the matter before the Forum. It is also to be noted that the opposite party had submitted before us that the present rate from 12/2008 to 12/2010 is only at the rate of Rs. 22/- per month based on the consumption pattern. At the same time we find that the complainant had not paid any charges from 2/2007 though he would contend that the opposite party was not accepting the charges. Taking the facts and circumstances as a whole into consideration, we are of the opinion that the complainant is liable to pay charges @ Rs. 22/- per month from 3/2007 to 12/2010. The appellant is also directed to cancel the bill dated 18.12.2008 for Rs. 4,821/- and other bills, if any issued thereafter. Though we find deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/appellant in not issuing additional bills at the appropriate time, we are not inclined to award any compensation or costs since the complainant is also at fault in not remitting charges from 3/2007 on wards. It is also noted that though the complainant had submitted that the opposite party was not accepting the charges, he had not resorted to remit the charges by paying the same through money order or by any other means.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications indicated above. Thereby the opposite party is entitled to realize water charges @ Rs. 22/- per month from 3/2007 to 12/2010 with the usual penal charges for monthly payments applicable to domestic consumers. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
JUSTICE. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ST
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 322/2010
JUDGMENT DATED 31.12.2010
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPELLANT
The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
P.H. Sub Division, Angamaly,
Ernakulam.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. C. Sudheesh Kumar,
Adv. Sri. Reghukumar & associates)
Vs
RESPONDENT
Bharathan,
S/o Balakrishna Menon,
Usha Nivas, Kanjoor Kara
Vadakkumbhagam Village,
Aluva, Ernakulam
(Rep. by Adv. Smt. Maya R.Mani)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The order dated 16.3.2010 of CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C. 247/2009 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite party. As per the impugned order the complaint is allowed and it is ordered that the complainant is not necessarily liable to pay the amount as demanded by the opposite party.
The case of the complainant is that he is the beneficiary of water connection bearing No. K.J. 257 which stands in favour of his mother. He has alleged that on 18.12.2008 the opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 4,821/- for a period of 33 months and he is not liable to pay the said amount. It is also alleged that his connection was disconnected on 5.11.2008 without any notice. The complainant is further informed that he is liable to pay Rs. 7,192/- as on 2.2.2009. Submitting that he is not liable to pay the said amount the complaint is filed praying for directions to take appropriate action against the opposite party in issuing the said bills.
The opposite party resisted the complainant by filing version wherein it was contended that a new meter was installed on 15.11.2005 and readings once in every six months, were taken and the bills were issued as per the readings recorded in the replaced meter. It was also submitted that in February, 2007, the complainant ought to have remitted Rs. 1,828/- and the amount already remitted by the complainant had been deducted. The amount was Rs. 1,072/- as in 2/2007 and the subsequent charges were also calculated as per the readings recorded in the meter. Contenting that the disconnection was also effected after issuing disconnection notice on 12.8.2008, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as Pw1 and Exts. A1 to A2 on his side. On the side of the opposite parties, Ext. B1 to B3 were marked. It is based on the said evidence that the Forum below passed the impugned order .
Heard both sides.
The learned counsel for the appellant /opposite party submitted before us that the Forum below had gone wrong in canceling the bills issued to the complainant as it contained charges for the water actually consumed by the complainant and as per meter readings taken from time to time. He has also submitted that after replacement of the meter on 15.1.2005 the opposite party had been taking meter readings once in every six months and as per readings the complainant ought to have remitted Rs. 1,828/- as in February, 2007 and deducting the amount of Rs. 756/- the complainant had to remit Rs. 1072/- and as the complainant did not pay any amount from 2/07, the opposite party issued a disconnection notice on 5.11.2008 and as per directions of the Forum below, the service was reconnected on 24.5.2009. It is argued by him that the complainant’s stand that he is not liable to pay charges for the actual consumption recorded in the meter cannot be supported and he canvassed for the position that the bills issued by the opposite parties have to be upheld and the complaint dismissed.
On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued before us that the obstinate attitude of the opposite party is against law, ethics and principles of rational justice. It is her very case that the complainant had cleared all the dues up to 2/2006 and had paid the water charges in advance up to 2/2007. She had invited our attitudes to Ext. A1 and A2 in support of her such contentions. She had raised a case that the opposite party had never given any disconnection notice to the complainant and the production of Ext. B2 claiming to be the copy of disconnection notice is a fabricated one and hence can not be accepted as it is not properly proved before the Forum. She had argued that apart from filing such a notice the opposite party has not cared to enter the box and give evidence before the Forum. Though it is admitted by the learned counsel that the complainant had not made any remittance towards water charges from 2/2007, it is her case that it was the opposite party who refused to accept the charges saying that there is huge arrears in the consumer’s account. It is also her case that even on 18.12.2010 the meter reading is only 1895.471 for a period of nearly six years which would negative the claim of the opposite party that the complainant had consumed so much of water warranting the demand of huge amounts towards water charges.
At the time of hearing the appellant/opposite party was present and we obtained some clarifications from the Asst. Executive Engineer also. On going through the details produced by the appellant we find that as per the office records, certain readings are furnished and it is based on the said readings that the claims are made. However apart from the said details kept by the opposite party in their office, there is no evidence to show that the said details are true and correct. If the opposite party had taken meter readings as claimed, why they have failed in issuing the additional bills then and there is a question un answered by the opposite party . Though it is stated that disconnection notice was issued as per Ext. B2, there is no supporting evidence to show that such notice was issued to the complainant. The complainant/respondent had disputed the issue of the said disconnection notice and he had given evidence before the Forum as Pw1 inspite of his physical incapacities and ailments. It seems that the opposite party had taken a casual attitude in contesting the matter before the Forum. It is also to be noted that the opposite party had submitted before us that the present rate from 12/2008 to 12/2010 is only at the rate of Rs. 22/- per month based on the consumption pattern. At the same time we find that the complainant had not paid any charges from 2/2007 though he would contend that the opposite party was not accepting the charges. Taking the facts and circumstances as a whole into consideration, we are of the opinion that the complainant is liable to pay charges @ Rs. 22/- per month from 3/2007 to 12/2010. The appellant is also directed to cancel the bill dated 18.12.2008 for Rs. 4,821/- and other bills, if any issued thereafter. Though we find deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/appellant in not issuing additional bills at the appropriate time, we are not inclined to award any compensation or costs since the complainant is also at fault in not remitting charges from 3/2007 on wards. It is also noted that though the complainant had submitted that the opposite party was not accepting the charges, he had not resorted to remit the charges by paying the same through money order or by any other means.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications indicated above. Thereby the opposite party is entitled to realize water charges @ Rs. 22/- per month from 3/2007 to 12/2010 with the usual penal charges for monthly payments applicable to domestic consumers. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
JUSTICE. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ST
