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. 153/2006 Filed on 26/05/2006 Dated: 15..06..2009
Complainant: K. Pardhan, Mini Bhavan, V.N.No.10, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
Opposite parties:
Chief Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Water Works Building, Thiruvananthapuram. Assistant Executive Engineer, KWA., Water Works Central Sub Division, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. Assisant Engineer, KWA, Water Works Central Sub Division, Thiruvananthapuram.
Addl. Opposite party: Managing Director, KWA, Jala Bhavan, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. V.S. Hareendranath)
This O.P having been heard on 30..04..2009, the Forum on 15..06..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is the consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.VAZ/3279/D, that he was remitting water charges at the rate of Rs.42/- per month as fixed by the opposite parties in 1995 without any default, that in 1996 complainant was asked by the opposite parties to remit Rs.5,000/- towards arrear of water charges, and that it was informed by opposite parties that without clearing the said arrears by the complainant, opposite parties would not accept the duly water charges. Though the complainant lodged several complaints before Kerawa Water Authority and requested them to inspect water meter and replace it if found any fault therein, no action was taken by opposite parties to redress the grievance of the complainant. At last, Sri. Saju Varghese, Assistant Engineer, intervened and directed the complainant to remit 1/3 of the arrear amount which will come to Rs. 4,830/-, on the condition that on installation of a new meter and after assessing the new meter reading if found excess amount remitted which will be adjusted against the future bills. On the said condition the complainant remitted the said amount of Rs.4,830/- on 18/8/2000 and new meter was installed on February 2000. Thereafter meter reading was taken and found that complainant's consumption amount was of Rs.39/- per month. It was due to the defect of the former meter the consumption was shown at Rs.280/- per month that was due to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Thereafter when complainant approached the opposite parties to get the amount already remitted adjustment in the future bills. Opposite parties had not respond positively and direct the complainant to remit Rs.2,000/- to avoid disconnection, altogether complainant had remitted Rs.6,599/-. Even after repeated request opposite parties did not comeforward to adjust the remitted amount in the future bills. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to adjust or to refund the remitted amount.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that water charges are calculated by taking into consideration of the consumption of water and not according to the number of occupants. Opposite parties have revised the water charges in 1991 in 1993 and in 1999. The consumer was given an invoice card for remitting Rs.42/- per month for an average consumption of 23.5kl. The detailed statement of remittance of water charges by the consumer is given below:
From 3/1989 to 5/1989 Rs. 476 From 3/93 upto 11/96 Rs. 2902 18/3/2000 Rs. 4830 30/5/2001 Rs. 575 23/7/2001 Rs. 1150 20/2/2002 Rs. 1074 Upto 1/2002 arrears cleared 24/11/2005 Rs. 2000 29/12/2005 Rs. 300 25/2/2006 Rs. 500 25/4/2006 Rs. 1000
Because of the non-payment of the water charges in time opposite parties forced to levy Rs.5/- as penalty per month as provided in the Regulations. It was after a lapse of about 7 years that the consumer has remitted the water charges after effecting the payment in 1989. The water bills were issued as per the readings recorded in the water meter and also taking into consideration of the revision in the rates from time to time. The water meter fitted at the premises of the consumer is in perfect working condition, the consumption recorded in the meter may be due to several other reasons like excess use of water on festival and auspicious days, consumption of water by other members and relatives or friends who visit and stay in the house occassionally and water used for the periodical maintenance and repairs, un-noticed leakage in the line and increased usage of water by family members. It was on humanitarian grounds that the water connection was not disconnected eventhough there was non-payment of water charges for a long period. Considering the age of the complainant opposite party has given extreme respect and consideration to him. When the issue came to the notice, the consumer was assured that his complaint will be looked into by the authrotieis and on verification, it was found that there was no mistake in the calculations and the changes in the water charges are only because of the over consumption of water, that there was no fault with meter. As agreed by the 1st opposite party water meter at the connection was replaced on 18/8/2000. The consumer has remitted Rs.4,830/- on 18/8/2000 out of the arrears of Rs.9,460/- which he was liable to pay. The meter readings after the installation of the new meter are given below: Date Meter reading KL.consumed 1. 18/8/2000 0.6KL - 17/11/2000 47 " 15.5KL
10/10/2001 347 " 27.9 "
4. 13/12/2001 424 " 36.6 " 5. 08/02/2002 490 " 35.2 " 6. 09/04/2002 564 " 37.5 " 7. 10/06/2002 634 " 34.3 " 8. 08/08/2002 701 " 34.5 " 9. 10/10/2002 768 " 32.4 " 10. 12/12/2002 822 " 23.4 "
The consumption of the consumer on 4/2006 is 36.11kl (the monthly rate was Rs.123/-), on 4/2005 the consumption was 51.4kl (the monthly rate was Rs. 202/-). The water bill issued to the consumer is as per the readings recorded in the working meter. There is nothing wrong in the recording of readings, calculation of charges or in preparation of the bill. The consumer has admitted the arrears which he is liable to pay and has requested for installments for the payment of arrears. The complainant cannot run away from the liability which he has once admitted. There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. All such allegations are absolutely baseless. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs to opposite parties. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
Whether the complainant is entitled for refund or adjustment of Rs.4,830/- remitted on 18/8/2000? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and costs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite parties has not filed affidavit. Complainant has not been cross examined by the opposite parties?
5. Points (i) to (iv): The case of the complainant is that he was remitting water charges at the rate of Rs.42/- per month as fixed by the opposite parties in 1995 without any default, and that in 1996 complainant was asked by opposite parties to remit Rs.5,000/- towards arrear of water charges. It was informed by opposite parties that without clearing the said arrears by the complainant, opposite parties would not accept the duly water charges. Submission by the complainant is that though he had lodged several complaints before the Water Authority and requested them to inspect water meter and replace it if found any fault therein, no action was taken by opposite parties to redress the grievance of the complainant, and at last, Sri. Saju Varghese, Assistant Engineer intervened and directed the complainant to remit 1/3 of the arrear amount which came to Rs.4,830/-, on the condition that on installation of a new meter and after assessing the new meter reading, if found excess amount remitted, which will be adjusted against the future bills. It is submitted by the complainant that he had remitted the aforesaid Rs.4,830/- on 18/8/2000 by Ext.P4. Ext.P3 is the copy of the order dated 17/8/2000 of A.E/Revenue. As per Ext.P3, the order is re-produced as under: “Consumer allowed to remit 1/3 of the arrears as part payment and restore W.S with a new working meter to assess the present consumption and to settle the issue (Rs.4,830)”. It is pertinent to note that the said 1/3 of the arrears amount, (Rs.4,830) as per Ext.P3 order, is seen directed to remit as part payment, nowhere in Ext.P3 is it seen assured by the opposite parties that the said amount of Rs.4,830/- will be adjusted against future bills as alleged by the complainant. It is further submitted by the complainant that from 30/1/2001 to 25/4/2006 he had remitted Rs.6,599/- as water charges. Here the issue is with regard to the remittance of Rs.4,830/- on 18/8/2000 and its adjustment against the future bills. Evidently, no assurance is seen given by the opposite parties to adjust the amount of Rs.4,830/- remitted, against future bills. The complaint is seen filed on 26/5/2006, after a lapse of 5 years and 9 months from the date of remittance of Rs.4,830/-. If complainant had any grievance he ought to have filed the complaint within two years from the date of remittance, that is within two years from the date of cause of action. Complainant never furnished any document to show that the meter was faulty. Submission by opposite parties in the version is that the water meter fitted in the premises of the consumer is in perfect working condition, that the consumer was not in the habit of paying water charges regularly, that the detailed statement of remittance of water charges by the consumer is as follows:
From 3/1989 to 5/1989 Rs. 476 From 3/93 to 11/96 Rs. 2902 18/3/2000 Rs. 4830 30/5/2001 Rs. 575 23/7/2001 Rs. 1150 20/2/2002 Rs. 1074 Upto 01/2002 arrears cleared 24/11/2005 Rs. 2000 29/12/2005 Rs. 300 25/2/2006 Rs. 500 25/4/2006 Rs. 1000
Complainant furnished copies of the pay-in-slip for payment of water charges to opposite parties by Ext.P1 series. Ext.P1 series include pay-in-slips dated 1/3/1993 for Rs.980/-, 24/2/94 for Rs.320/-, 13/9/95 for Rs. 999/-, 19/10/95 for Rs.42/-, 4/12/95 for Rs.84, 20/4/96 for Rs.42/- and 25/11/96 for Rs.225/-. There is no material on records to show remittance of water charges from 1989 to 3/93 & from 11/96 to 8/2000. As per Ext.P3 dated 17/8/2000, consumer is seen allowed to remit 1/3 of the arrears as part payment. Hence Rs.4,830/- remitted by Ext.P4 is in continuation of the order as per Ext.P3. There is no material on record to show that the said remittance of Rs.4,830/- by Ext.P4 was on assurance of opposite parties, that the same will be adjusted against bills. The initial onus of establishing the case is upon the complainant. In this context it is required to be highlighted the submission by the opposite parties that it was on humanitarian grounds that the water connection was not disconnected even though there was non-payment of water charges for a long period and considering the age of the complainant, opposite parties have given extreme respect and consideration to him. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the light of evidence available on records we find the complainant itself is barred by limitation and complainant is not entitled for refund or adjustment of Rs.4,830/- remitted on 18/8/2000. The complaint has no merits at all which deserves to be dismissed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear and suffer 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 15th day of June, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad. O.P.No.153/2006 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of pay-in-slip dated 20/4/96, 25/11/96, 17/6/96, 25/1/96, 19/10/95, 11/12/95, 24/2/94, 13/9/95 & 1/3/93. P2 : Copy of Kerala Kaumudi newspaper cutting dated 15/6/1999. P3 : Copy of notice dated 17/8/2000 P4 : Copy of receipt dated 18/8/2000 P5 : Copy of receipt dated 26/3/2001 P6 : Copy of consumer ledger dated 17/6/2000 P7 : Copy of bill No.777 dated 5/10/2005
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
ad. 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. 153/2006 Filed on 26/05/2006 Dated: 15..06..2009
Complainant: K. Pardhan, Mini Bhavan, V.N.No.10, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
Opposite parties:
Chief Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Water Works Building, Thiruvananthapuram. Assistant Executive Engineer, KWA., Water Works Central Sub Division, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. Assisant Engineer, KWA, Water Works Central Sub Division, Thiruvananthapuram.
Addl. Opposite party: Managing Director, KWA, Jala Bhavan, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. V.S. Hareendranath)
This O.P having been heard on 30..04..2009, the Forum on 15..06..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is the consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.VAZ/3279/D, that he was remitting water charges at the rate of Rs.42/- per month as fixed by the opposite parties in 1995 without any default, that in 1996 complainant was asked by the opposite parties to remit Rs.5,000/- towards arrear of water charges, and that it was informed by opposite parties that without clearing the said arrears by the complainant, opposite parties would not accept the duly water charges. Though the complainant lodged several complaints before Kerawa Water Authority and requested them to inspect water meter and replace it if found any fault therein, no action was taken by opposite parties to redress the grievance of the complainant. At last, Sri. Saju Varghese, Assistant Engineer, intervened and directed the complainant to remit 1/3 of the arrear amount which will come to Rs. 4,830/-, on the condition that on installation of a new meter and after assessing the new meter reading if found excess amount remitted which will be adjusted against the future bills. On the said condition the complainant remitted the said amount of Rs.4,830/- on 18/8/2000 and new meter was installed on February 2000. Thereafter meter reading was taken and found that complainant's consumption amount was of Rs.39/- per month. It was due to the defect of the former meter the consumption was shown at Rs.280/- per month that was due to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Thereafter when complainant approached the opposite parties to get the amount already remitted adjustment in the future bills. Opposite parties had not respond positively and direct the complainant to remit Rs.2,000/- to avoid disconnection, altogether complainant had remitted Rs.6,599/-. Even after repeated request opposite parties did not comeforward to adjust the remitted amount in the future bills. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to adjust or to refund the remitted amount.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that water charges are calculated by taking into consideration of the consumption of water and not according to the number of occupants. Opposite parties have revised the water charges in 1991 in 1993 and in 1999. The consumer was given an invoice card for remitting Rs.42/- per month for an average consumption of 23.5kl. The detailed statement of remittance of water charges by the consumer is given below:
From 3/1989 to 5/1989 Rs. 476 From 3/93 upto 11/96 Rs. 2902 18/3/2000 Rs. 4830 30/5/2001 Rs. 575 23/7/2001 Rs. 1150 20/2/2002 Rs. 1074 Upto 1/2002 arrears cleared 24/11/2005 Rs. 2000 29/12/2005 Rs. 300 25/2/2006 Rs. 500 25/4/2006 Rs. 1000
Because of the non-payment of the water charges in time opposite parties forced to levy Rs.5/- as penalty per month as provided in the Regulations. It was after a lapse of about 7 years that the consumer has remitted the water charges after effecting the payment in 1989. The water bills were issued as per the readings recorded in the water meter and also taking into consideration of the revision in the rates from time to time. The water meter fitted at the premises of the consumer is in perfect working condition, the consumption recorded in the meter may be due to several other reasons like excess use of water on festival and auspicious days, consumption of water by other members and relatives or friends who visit and stay in the house occassionally and water used for the periodical maintenance and repairs, un-noticed leakage in the line and increased usage of water by family members. It was on humanitarian grounds that the water connection was not disconnected eventhough there was non-payment of water charges for a long period. Considering the age of the complainant opposite party has given extreme respect and consideration to him. When the issue came to the notice, the consumer was assured that his complaint will be looked into by the authrotieis and on verification, it was found that there was no mistake in the calculations and the changes in the water charges are only because of the over consumption of water, that there was no fault with meter. As agreed by the 1st opposite party water meter at the connection was replaced on 18/8/2000. The consumer has remitted Rs.4,830/- on 18/8/2000 out of the arrears of Rs.9,460/- which he was liable to pay. The meter readings after the installation of the new meter are given below: Date Meter reading KL.consumed 1. 18/8/2000 0.6KL - 17/11/2000 47 " 15.5KL
10/10/2001 347 " 27.9 "
4. 13/12/2001 424 " 36.6 " 5. 08/02/2002 490 " 35.2 " 6. 09/04/2002 564 " 37.5 " 7. 10/06/2002 634 " 34.3 " 8. 08/08/2002 701 " 34.5 " 9. 10/10/2002 768 " 32.4 " 10. 12/12/2002 822 " 23.4 "
The consumption of the consumer on 4/2006 is 36.11kl (the monthly rate was Rs.123/-), on 4/2005 the consumption was 51.4kl (the monthly rate was Rs. 202/-). The water bill issued to the consumer is as per the readings recorded in the working meter. There is nothing wrong in the recording of readings, calculation of charges or in preparation of the bill. The consumer has admitted the arrears which he is liable to pay and has requested for installments for the payment of arrears. The complainant cannot run away from the liability which he has once admitted. There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. All such allegations are absolutely baseless. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs to opposite parties. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
Whether the complainant is entitled for refund or adjustment of Rs.4,830/- remitted on 18/8/2000? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and costs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite parties has not filed affidavit. Complainant has not been cross examined by the opposite parties?
5. Points (i) to (iv): The case of the complainant is that he was remitting water charges at the rate of Rs.42/- per month as fixed by the opposite parties in 1995 without any default, and that in 1996 complainant was asked by opposite parties to remit Rs.5,000/- towards arrear of water charges. It was informed by opposite parties that without clearing the said arrears by the complainant, opposite parties would not accept the duly water charges. Submission by the complainant is that though he had lodged several complaints before the Water Authority and requested them to inspect water meter and replace it if found any fault therein, no action was taken by opposite parties to redress the grievance of the complainant, and at last, Sri. Saju Varghese, Assistant Engineer intervened and directed the complainant to remit 1/3 of the arrear amount which came to Rs.4,830/-, on the condition that on installation of a new meter and after assessing the new meter reading, if found excess amount remitted, which will be adjusted against the future bills. It is submitted by the complainant that he had remitted the aforesaid Rs.4,830/- on 18/8/2000 by Ext.P4. Ext.P3 is the copy of the order dated 17/8/2000 of A.E/Revenue. As per Ext.P3, the order is re-produced as under: “Consumer allowed to remit 1/3 of the arrears as part payment and restore W.S with a new working meter to assess the present consumption and to settle the issue (Rs.4,830)”. It is pertinent to note that the said 1/3 of the arrears amount, (Rs.4,830) as per Ext.P3 order, is seen directed to remit as part payment, nowhere in Ext.P3 is it seen assured by the opposite parties that the said amount of Rs.4,830/- will be adjusted against future bills as alleged by the complainant. It is further submitted by the complainant that from 30/1/2001 to 25/4/2006 he had remitted Rs.6,599/- as water charges. Here the issue is with regard to the remittance of Rs.4,830/- on 18/8/2000 and its adjustment against the future bills. Evidently, no assurance is seen given by the opposite parties to adjust the amount of Rs.4,830/- remitted, against future bills. The complaint is seen filed on 26/5/2006, after a lapse of 5 years and 9 months from the date of remittance of Rs.4,830/-. If complainant had any grievance he ought to have filed the complaint within two years from the date of remittance, that is within two years from the date of cause of action. Complainant never furnished any document to show that the meter was faulty. Submission by opposite parties in the version is that the water meter fitted in the premises of the consumer is in perfect working condition, that the consumer was not in the habit of paying water charges regularly, that the detailed statement of remittance of water charges by the consumer is as follows:
From 3/1989 to 5/1989 Rs. 476 From 3/93 to 11/96 Rs. 2902 18/3/2000 Rs. 4830 30/5/2001 Rs. 575 23/7/2001 Rs. 1150 20/2/2002 Rs. 1074 Upto 01/2002 arrears cleared 24/11/2005 Rs. 2000 29/12/2005 Rs. 300 25/2/2006 Rs. 500 25/4/2006 Rs. 1000
Complainant furnished copies of the pay-in-slip for payment of water charges to opposite parties by Ext.P1 series. Ext.P1 series include pay-in-slips dated 1/3/1993 for Rs.980/-, 24/2/94 for Rs.320/-, 13/9/95 for Rs. 999/-, 19/10/95 for Rs.42/-, 4/12/95 for Rs.84, 20/4/96 for Rs.42/- and 25/11/96 for Rs.225/-. There is no material on records to show remittance of water charges from 1989 to 3/93 & from 11/96 to 8/2000. As per Ext.P3 dated 17/8/2000, consumer is seen allowed to remit 1/3 of the arrears as part payment. Hence Rs.4,830/- remitted by Ext.P4 is in continuation of the order as per Ext.P3. There is no material on record to show that the said remittance of Rs.4,830/- by Ext.P4 was on assurance of opposite parties, that the same will be adjusted against bills. The initial onus of establishing the case is upon the complainant. In this context it is required to be highlighted the submission by the opposite parties that it was on humanitarian grounds that the water connection was not disconnected even though there was non-payment of water charges for a long period and considering the age of the complainant, opposite parties have given extreme respect and consideration to him. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the light of evidence available on records we find the complainant itself is barred by limitation and complainant is not entitled for refund or adjustment of Rs.4,830/- remitted on 18/8/2000. The complaint has no merits at all which deserves to be dismissed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear and suffer 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 15th day of June, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad. O.P.No.153/2006 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of pay-in-slip dated 20/4/96, 25/11/96, 17/6/96, 25/1/96, 19/10/95, 11/12/95, 24/2/94, 13/9/95 & 1/3/93. P2 : Copy of Kerala Kaumudi newspaper cutting dated 15/6/1999. P3 : Copy of notice dated 17/8/2000 P4 : Copy of receipt dated 18/8/2000 P5 : Copy of receipt dated 26/3/2001 P6 : Copy of consumer ledger dated 17/6/2000 P7 : Copy of bill No.777 dated 5/10/2005
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | |
