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. 08/2003 Filed on 06.01.2003

Dated : 31.08.2010

Complainant:

Lalitha Devi, T.C 19/1791 (4) Kesavan Nair Road, Poojappura P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. S. Mohan Das)

Opposite parties :

1. Kerala Water Authority represented by its Chairman, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. The Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Karamana Section, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. P. Dileepkhan)

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 03.09.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 05.06.2010, the Forum on 31.08.2010 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 10002/D, that the connection is under domestic category, that complainant was paying water charges regularly, that whileso opposite party issued a bill dated 16.04.2001 for Rs. 2,587/- towards arrears of water charges upto March 2001, that complainant remitted the said amount, that thereafter monthly charge was fixed at Rs. 85/-, that complainant was not in station for some time and she could not pay water charges in time, whileso she was served with a bill dated 23.10.2002 for Rs. 9,406/- alleged to be due upto 09/02, that the bill issued by opposite party is prima facie erroneous which can be seen from the face of the records. Complainant requested the opposite party to rectify the defects and finally a lawyer's notice was issued calling upon them to correct the bill and issue a fresh one showing the actual amount due from the complainant. Nothing was done by the opposite party to rectify the defect. Hence this complaint to direct opposite party to correct the bill and to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- along with costs.

Opposite party filed version contending interalia that the connection was granted on 24.10.1998, that complainant remitted a sum of Rs. 2,592/- on 10.08.2001, before that complainant did not remit water charges as averred in the complaint, that complainant remitted arrear bill upto 03/01, that monthly water charge will vary depending upon the meter reading, that on 08.05.2001 average consumption went up to 86.3 KL per month. As per that, bill revised from 06/99. Accordingly the arrear amount comes to Rs. 9,466/- as on 09/02. That the bill was prepared on the basis of existing rules and complainant is bound to pay for the services rendered by the opposite parties. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bill dated 23.10.2002 cancelled?

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

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs?

In support of the complaint complainant has filed affidavit as PW1 and has marked Exts. P1 to P3. In rebuttal 2^nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not furnish any documents.

Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. 10002/D and the said connection is under domestic category and complainant had remitted arrears of water charges upto 03/01. The issue herein is in regard to the issue of bill dated 23.10.2002 for Rs. 9,466/-. Ext. P1 is the consumer bill dated 16.04.2001. On perusal of Ext. P1 it is seen average consumption as 30.6 KL and arrears charges upto 03/01 comes to Rs. 2,587/- and complainant remitted Rs. 2,592/- vide receipt dated 10.08.2001 by Ext. P2. On going through Exts. P1 & P2 it is crystal clear that complainant had remitted arrear amount of water charges until 03/01. Ext. P3 is the consumer bill in dispute wherein total arrears mentioned is Rs. 9,466/-. Average consumption as per Ext. P3 from 04.04.2002 to 17.09.2002 comes to 22.9 KL, the status of the meter mentioned therein is 'working'. The arrear mentioned in Ext. P3 is upto 09/02. But it is not clear from which date onwards water charge fell due. On going through Ext. P1 & P2 it can be said that the water charge fell due from 04/01. Complainant has produced provisional invoice card and consumer's meter card which are in the records. As per the provisional invoice card monthly water charge from 24.10.1998 had come to Rs. 31/-. As per consumer's meter card meter reading rose from 2554 KL on 17.09.2002 to 2591 KL on 02.11.2002 to 2635 KL on 06.01.2003. On perusal of consumer's meter card from 17.09.2002 to 06.01.2003 complainant had consumed a total quantity of 81 KL water, that means average consumption comes to 20 KL. Even in Ext. P3 average consumption from 04/02 to 09/02 is 22.9 KL. If we take the average consumption for whole period from 04/02 to 01/03 average consumption comes to 20 KL. In view of the above discussions and evidence available on record we are of the opinion that complainant is liable to pay water charges on the basis of 22 KL per month from 04/01 to 09/02. If that be so, the stance taken by opposite party is unilateral and against facts on records. Non-rectification of the bill in dispute amounts to deficiency in service. To corroborate the averments in version opposite party did not furnish any documents except the oral testimony of 2^nd opposite party. In view of the above we are of the opinion that justice will be well met if complainant is directed to remit water charge on the basis of 22 KL per month from 04/01 to 09/02. The Ext. P3 bill issued by opposite party deserves to be rectified.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Ext. P3 bill issued by opposite party is cancelled. Complainant shall pay water charge on the basis of 22 KL per month from 04/01 to 09/02. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no compensation and both parties are directed to bear 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 August 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 08/2003

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of consumer bill dated 16.04.2001

P2 - Original receipt dated 10.08.2001

P3 - Consumer bill dated 23.10.2002

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb