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. 399/2002 Dated: 30..01..2009
Complainant: Johnson.T., Vengapotta Charuvila Veedu, Kottukal, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Asha. S.V)
Opposite parties: Chief Engineer, KWA., Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Supply Sub Division, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram. Assistant Engineer, Office of the Assistant Engineer, Water Supply Subdivision, Kanjiramkulam, Thiruvananthapuram. Managing Director, KWA., Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.C. Sasidharan Pillai)
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 11..02..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 15..01..2009, the Forum on 30..01..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties having domestic water connection vide No.K.P.1650. An employee of the opposite party during December 1997 visited the residence of the complainant and a bill was issued after taking the meter reading and complainant remitted the amount also. After that during June 2002 the complainant was served with a bill for Rs.17,610/- without any basis. As per the said bill, the period of billing is from 1/95 to 6/02 and the quantity consumed is recorded as 4723kl and arrears stated is Rs.17,610/-. Complainant, who is a poor man immediately approached the 3rd opposite party, who directed the complainant to approach the 2nd opposite party, and said that 2nd opposite party would give necessary direction to issue a fresh bill tallying with the real figures and facts. On 17..09..2002 a person claiming as attached to the 3rd opposite party came to the residence of the complainant and threatened with disconnection of the water connection. Immediately if complainant did not remit the entire amount within one week. Hence complainant was compelled to file a petition praying for an order directing the opposite parties not to disconnect the water connection till the disposal of the complaint. The bill dated 28..06..2002 issued to the complainant is without any basis and is unreasonable and exorbitant having no connection with the actual consumption, the rate chargeable per month is Rs.19/- or Rs.22/-. Opposite parties did not even care to verify the submission of the complainant that he promptly remitted the entire dues till 12/1997, and if at all the complainant had not remitted the water charges after the inspection on 12/1997 his water connection would have been disconnected by the opposite parties during 1998 itself. To add to the existing irregularity in the bill it was not mentioned whether the meter is working or not working which clearly shows that there is no connection with the amount in the bill and the actual consumption. The acts of the opposite parties can be viewed as the extreme in deficiency of service. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to issue a fresh bill taking into account of the actual consumption of water, and pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation. 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. As per consumer personal ledger it is seen that consumer No. KP 1656 has remitted only an amount of Rs.663/- towards arrear of water charges from 1/95 to 5/96. The balance amount of water charge arrears has not been remitted by the consumer till date. Kerala Water Authority prepared a bill on the basis of actual meter reading taken on 06..08..1996, 23..12..1997 & 11..01..2002. The bill amount was Rs.17,610/- and issued on 28..06..2002. The calculation of the above mentioned bill are as detailed below:
Average chargeable quantity from 1/95 to 6.8.96 = 26kl/M " " from 7.8.96 to 28.12.97 = 70kl/M " " from 24.12.97 to 11.1.02 = 63kl/M As per Reading period From To Rate No.of Months Total 1/95 to 7/96 Rs.56/- x 19 = 1064.00 8/96 to 12/97 Rs.226/- x 17 = 3842.00 1/98 to 3/99 Rs.189/- x 15 = 2835.00 4/99 to 6/02 Rs.270/- x 39 = 10530.00 ------------- Rs.18271.00 Less remittance upto 5/96 Rs. 663.00 ---------------- Rs.17608.00 Surcharge Rs. 2.00 ----------------- Arrear upto 6/02 Rs.17610.00 ========== The bills are prepared on the basis of the meter reading and monthly rate are fixed on the basis of average consumption of the drinking water, so the consumer is bound to remit the water charges for the water consumed. Complainant filed this complaint only to escape from remitting the money. There are provisions for remitting the arrear water charges in convenient installments. Consumer is bound to remit water charges. Complainant is not entitled to any reliefs as sought. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The points that arise for consideration are: Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether complainant is entitled to get meter reading bill quashed? Reliefs and costs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exs.P1 to P4. In rebuttal, 2nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit, opposite parties did not file any documents. Complainant has not been cross examined by the opposite parties. 2nd opposite party has not been cross examined by the complainant.
5. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties having domestic water connection vide No.KP 1650. It has been the case of the complainant that complainant had remitted water charges till 12/97, that during the last week of June 2002 the complainant was served with a bill for Rs.17,610/- without any basis. Ext. P1 is the copy of the provisional invoice card wherein consumer No.is KP 1656. As per Ext.P1, the monthly amount to be remitted is Rs.19/-. It is further stated in the bottom of the Ext.P1 that the arrears of Rs.17,608/- is due upto 6/02. The payment schedule is printed on the overleaf of Ext.P1. A perusal of the said payment schedule would disclose the fact that on 30.10.1995, the 1st installment of Rs.500/- is seen remitted by the complainant. Further an amount of Rs.163/- is seen remitted for water charges for the period 11/95 to 5/96. Ext.P2 is the copy of meter reading bill for Rs.17,610/- dated 28.06.2002 wherein the consumer No.stated is KP 1650. As per Ext.P2, the period of billing is from 1/95 to 6/02, while the present reading and previous reading not mentioned. But quantity consumed as on 11..01..2002 is 4723 kl. It is not clear from Ext.P2 whether meter is working or not. Regarding the details of amount to be remitted, it is stated that water charges is at 62kl and arrears due is from 1/95 to 6/02. Ext.P3 is the copy of consumer's meter card, wherein the consumer No.is KP 1656. On a perusal of Ext.P3 it is found that meter reading as on 6.9.1996 was 487kl, and on 23.12.1997 the meter reading was 1679kl. Thereafter meter reading is seen taken on 11.1.2002 on which meter reading was 4723kl. No remarks mentioned in Ext.P3 by the Inspecting Officer. The specific allegation in the complaint is that Ext.P2 bill issued to the complainant was without any basis. It has been rebutted by the opposite parties by submititing the following calculation details: Average chargeable quantity from 1/95 to 6.8.96 is 26kl/M, from 7.8.96 to 28.12.1997 the average quantity is 70kl/M and from 24.12.1997 to 11.1.2002, it is 63kl/M. The amount is calculated under four phases: From 1/95 to 7/96 water charge is Rs.1064 (that is Rs.56 x 19), from 8/96 to 12/97, water charge is Rs.3842/- (Rs.226 x 17), from 1/98 to 3/99, water charge is Rs.2835/- (that is Rs. 189 x 15) and from 4/99 to 6/02 water charge is Rs.10530 (that is Rs.279 x 39). As per consumer's meter card, meter readings were taken on 6.8.1996, 23.12.1997 & 11.1.2002. As per Ext.P1 the actual amount due will be ascertained on reading meters and necessary adjustment bill showing amounts due to/from the consumer will be sent to the consumer once in six months. As per consumer's meter card opposite parties did not act accordingly. Last meter reading was taken after four years from the previous date (23.12.1997) of meter reading. Though meter reading was taken on 6.8.1996, no additional bill was seen issued by the opposite parties immediately after the said meter reading. Subsequently meter reading was taken on 23.12.1997 but no bill was seen issued immediately thereafter. The action of the opposite parties would definitely be against the provision 13 of the Water Supply Regulation. Issuance of meter reading bill after a long lapse of 7 years would definitely saddle the complainant with huge amount. Further the consumer No.in Ext.P2 meter reading bill is KP 1650, whereas the consumer No.in Ext. P1 Provisional Invoice Card and Ext.P3 consumer's meter card is KP 1656. The discrepancy in consumer No.would cast doubt about the veracity of the meter reading bill issued by the opposite parties. Further the status of the meter, 'whether meter is working or not working' is not mentioned in the said bill. Main allegation raised in the complaint is the bill dated 28.6.2002 is without any basis, since the rate chargeable as per Ext.P1 Provisional Invoice Card is Rs.19/-. On perusal of Ext.P1 Provisional Invoice Card complainant had remitted Rs.500/- on 30.10.1995 and Rs.163/- on 5/96. No other documents to show any further remittance by the complainant. Normally, complainant is bound to remit amount as per Provisional Invoice Card and if the said amount was not remitted in time, opposite parties would definitely send demand notices to the complainant to pay the prescribed amount on or before a particular date. If complainant failed to react positively, opposite parties would take step to disconnect the house connection. In this case no such action is seen taken by the opposite parties, nor did opposite parties take meter reading as per provision of Water Supply Regulation nor did opposite parties furnish any material to substantiate the contention in the version. In the light of the difference in the consumer No.seen in Exts.P1 to P3 and in the absence of the status of meter in Ext.P2 bill, and in the light of non-production of any documents to substantiate the version by the opposite parties, we cast doubt over the meter reading bill dated 28.6.2002 which deserves to be quashed.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The meter reading bill dated 28.6.2002 issued by the opposite parties is hereby quashed. Opposite parties are at liberty to raise fresh meter reading bill showing the status of the meter, consumer No.and the actual consumption of water in the light of the Provision 13 of Kerala Water Supply Regulations. There will be no order as to compensation and cost.
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 30th day of January, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad. O.P.No.399/2002 APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness: NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of the provisional invoice card of consumer No.KP-1656 issued to the complainant.
P2 : " of meter reading bill No.4966 dt. 28/6/2002
P3 : " consumer meter card of con. No.KP 1656
P4 : " provisional invoice card
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. 399/2002 Dated: 30..01..2009
Complainant: Johnson.T., Vengapotta Charuvila Veedu, Kottukal, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Asha. S.V)
Opposite parties: Chief Engineer, KWA., Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Supply Sub Division, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram. Assistant Engineer, Office of the Assistant Engineer, Water Supply Subdivision, Kanjiramkulam, Thiruvananthapuram. Managing Director, KWA., Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.C. Sasidharan Pillai)
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 11..02..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 15..01..2009, the Forum on 30..01..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties having domestic water connection vide No.K.P.1650. An employee of the opposite party during December 1997 visited the residence of the complainant and a bill was issued after taking the meter reading and complainant remitted the amount also. After that during June 2002 the complainant was served with a bill for Rs.17,610/- without any basis. As per the said bill, the period of billing is from 1/95 to 6/02 and the quantity consumed is recorded as 4723kl and arrears stated is Rs.17,610/-. Complainant, who is a poor man immediately approached the 3rd opposite party, who directed the complainant to approach the 2nd opposite party, and said that 2nd opposite party would give necessary direction to issue a fresh bill tallying with the real figures and facts. On 17..09..2002 a person claiming as attached to the 3rd opposite party came to the residence of the complainant and threatened with disconnection of the water connection. Immediately if complainant did not remit the entire amount within one week. Hence complainant was compelled to file a petition praying for an order directing the opposite parties not to disconnect the water connection till the disposal of the complaint. The bill dated 28..06..2002 issued to the complainant is without any basis and is unreasonable and exorbitant having no connection with the actual consumption, the rate chargeable per month is Rs.19/- or Rs.22/-. Opposite parties did not even care to verify the submission of the complainant that he promptly remitted the entire dues till 12/1997, and if at all the complainant had not remitted the water charges after the inspection on 12/1997 his water connection would have been disconnected by the opposite parties during 1998 itself. To add to the existing irregularity in the bill it was not mentioned whether the meter is working or not working which clearly shows that there is no connection with the amount in the bill and the actual consumption. The acts of the opposite parties can be viewed as the extreme in deficiency of service. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to issue a fresh bill taking into account of the actual consumption of water, and pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation. 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. As per consumer personal ledger it is seen that consumer No. KP 1656 has remitted only an amount of Rs.663/- towards arrear of water charges from 1/95 to 5/96. The balance amount of water charge arrears has not been remitted by the consumer till date. Kerala Water Authority prepared a bill on the basis of actual meter reading taken on 06..08..1996, 23..12..1997 & 11..01..2002. The bill amount was Rs.17,610/- and issued on 28..06..2002. The calculation of the above mentioned bill are as detailed below:
Average chargeable quantity from 1/95 to 6.8.96 = 26kl/M " " from 7.8.96 to 28.12.97 = 70kl/M " " from 24.12.97 to 11.1.02 = 63kl/M As per Reading period From To Rate No.of Months Total 1/95 to 7/96 Rs.56/- x 19 = 1064.00 8/96 to 12/97 Rs.226/- x 17 = 3842.00 1/98 to 3/99 Rs.189/- x 15 = 2835.00 4/99 to 6/02 Rs.270/- x 39 = 10530.00 ------------- Rs.18271.00 Less remittance upto 5/96 Rs. 663.00 ---------------- Rs.17608.00 Surcharge Rs. 2.00 ----------------- Arrear upto 6/02 Rs.17610.00 ========== The bills are prepared on the basis of the meter reading and monthly rate are fixed on the basis of average consumption of the drinking water, so the consumer is bound to remit the water charges for the water consumed. Complainant filed this complaint only to escape from remitting the money. There are provisions for remitting the arrear water charges in convenient installments. Consumer is bound to remit water charges. Complainant is not entitled to any reliefs as sought. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The points that arise for consideration are: Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether complainant is entitled to get meter reading bill quashed? Reliefs and costs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exs.P1 to P4. In rebuttal, 2nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit, opposite parties did not file any documents. Complainant has not been cross examined by the opposite parties. 2nd opposite party has not been cross examined by the complainant.
5. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties having domestic water connection vide No.KP 1650. It has been the case of the complainant that complainant had remitted water charges till 12/97, that during the last week of June 2002 the complainant was served with a bill for Rs.17,610/- without any basis. Ext. P1 is the copy of the provisional invoice card wherein consumer No.is KP 1656. As per Ext.P1, the monthly amount to be remitted is Rs.19/-. It is further stated in the bottom of the Ext.P1 that the arrears of Rs.17,608/- is due upto 6/02. The payment schedule is printed on the overleaf of Ext.P1. A perusal of the said payment schedule would disclose the fact that on 30.10.1995, the 1st installment of Rs.500/- is seen remitted by the complainant. Further an amount of Rs.163/- is seen remitted for water charges for the period 11/95 to 5/96. Ext.P2 is the copy of meter reading bill for Rs.17,610/- dated 28.06.2002 wherein the consumer No.stated is KP 1650. As per Ext.P2, the period of billing is from 1/95 to 6/02, while the present reading and previous reading not mentioned. But quantity consumed as on 11..01..2002 is 4723 kl. It is not clear from Ext.P2 whether meter is working or not. Regarding the details of amount to be remitted, it is stated that water charges is at 62kl and arrears due is from 1/95 to 6/02. Ext.P3 is the copy of consumer's meter card, wherein the consumer No.is KP 1656. On a perusal of Ext.P3 it is found that meter reading as on 6.9.1996 was 487kl, and on 23.12.1997 the meter reading was 1679kl. Thereafter meter reading is seen taken on 11.1.2002 on which meter reading was 4723kl. No remarks mentioned in Ext.P3 by the Inspecting Officer. The specific allegation in the complaint is that Ext.P2 bill issued to the complainant was without any basis. It has been rebutted by the opposite parties by submititing the following calculation details: Average chargeable quantity from 1/95 to 6.8.96 is 26kl/M, from 7.8.96 to 28.12.1997 the average quantity is 70kl/M and from 24.12.1997 to 11.1.2002, it is 63kl/M. The amount is calculated under four phases: From 1/95 to 7/96 water charge is Rs.1064 (that is Rs.56 x 19), from 8/96 to 12/97, water charge is Rs.3842/- (Rs.226 x 17), from 1/98 to 3/99, water charge is Rs.2835/- (that is Rs. 189 x 15) and from 4/99 to 6/02 water charge is Rs.10530 (that is Rs.279 x 39). As per consumer's meter card, meter readings were taken on 6.8.1996, 23.12.1997 & 11.1.2002. As per Ext.P1 the actual amount due will be ascertained on reading meters and necessary adjustment bill showing amounts due to/from the consumer will be sent to the consumer once in six months. As per consumer's meter card opposite parties did not act accordingly. Last meter reading was taken after four years from the previous date (23.12.1997) of meter reading. Though meter reading was taken on 6.8.1996, no additional bill was seen issued by the opposite parties immediately after the said meter reading. Subsequently meter reading was taken on 23.12.1997 but no bill was seen issued immediately thereafter. The action of the opposite parties would definitely be against the provision 13 of the Water Supply Regulation. Issuance of meter reading bill after a long lapse of 7 years would definitely saddle the complainant with huge amount. Further the consumer No.in Ext.P2 meter reading bill is KP 1650, whereas the consumer No.in Ext. P1 Provisional Invoice Card and Ext.P3 consumer's meter card is KP 1656. The discrepancy in consumer No.would cast doubt about the veracity of the meter reading bill issued by the opposite parties. Further the status of the meter, 'whether meter is working or not working' is not mentioned in the said bill. Main allegation raised in the complaint is the bill dated 28.6.2002 is without any basis, since the rate chargeable as per Ext.P1 Provisional Invoice Card is Rs.19/-. On perusal of Ext.P1 Provisional Invoice Card complainant had remitted Rs.500/- on 30.10.1995 and Rs.163/- on 5/96. No other documents to show any further remittance by the complainant. Normally, complainant is bound to remit amount as per Provisional Invoice Card and if the said amount was not remitted in time, opposite parties would definitely send demand notices to the complainant to pay the prescribed amount on or before a particular date. If complainant failed to react positively, opposite parties would take step to disconnect the house connection. In this case no such action is seen taken by the opposite parties, nor did opposite parties take meter reading as per provision of Water Supply Regulation nor did opposite parties furnish any material to substantiate the contention in the version. In the light of the difference in the consumer No.seen in Exts.P1 to P3 and in the absence of the status of meter in Ext.P2 bill, and in the light of non-production of any documents to substantiate the version by the opposite parties, we cast doubt over the meter reading bill dated 28.6.2002 which deserves to be quashed.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The meter reading bill dated 28.6.2002 issued by the opposite parties is hereby quashed. Opposite parties are at liberty to raise fresh meter reading bill showing the status of the meter, consumer No.and the actual consumption of water in the light of the Provision 13 of Kerala Water Supply Regulations. There will be no order as to compensation and cost.
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 30th day of January, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad. O.P.No.399/2002 APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness: NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of the provisional invoice card of consumer No.KP-1656 issued to the complainant.
P2 : " of meter reading bill No.4966 dt. 28/6/2002
P3 : " consumer meter card of con. No.KP 1656
P4 : " provisional invoice card
III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
