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. 215/2003 Filed on 28/05/2003 Dated: 30..04..2010 Complainant: J. Thomas (Headmaster) St. Mary's L.P.S., Kundamanbhagom, Perukavu – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 573. (John D'cruz.T.C., present Headmaster)
(By Adv. Deepak Twinkle Sanal)
Opposite parties: Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. Assistant Engineer, K.W.A., P.T.P Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram. Managing Director, K.W.A., Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Santhamma Thomas) 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 19..01..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 27..02..2010, the Forum on 30..04..2010 delivered the following: ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.VKL-589-N, that the connection was given to St.Mary's L.P.S., Perukavu under non-domestic category, that the School is situated at a level above the normal place and water supply was not available during the working hours of the school, that water supply was available in alternate days and that too in nights, that opposite parties issued bill on the basis of 28KL per month and on enquiry by the complainant it was informed that 28 KL is the minimum, that on the basis of the above said consumption from 01/04/99 to 28/02/2003 at the rate of Rs. 206/-, complainant is liable to pay Rs. 9,890/- only but opposite parties issued bill for Rs. 2,175/-. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to raise bill on the basis of used water excluding penal interest. 2. Opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, that the connection is for commercial purpose, that water supply to entire Vilavoorkal Panchayat area is through Rural Water Supply Scheme to Vilavoorkal and the Panchayat is divided into 2 zones and water supply is given at alternate days to each zone in order to maintain sufficient pressure at elevated areas of the Panchayat, that the Provisional Invoice Card was issued to consumer and PIC fixed at 28 KL per month (at the rate of Rs.131/- upto 3/99 and Rs. 208/- per month from 4/99 onwards). Consumer had an arrear of Rs. 1,430/- as on 9/98 and no remittance was done till date and arrear accumulated to Rs. 23,927/-. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether supply of water was available to consumer regularly? Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as claimed by opposite parties vide bills dated 7/3/03, 6/9/03 and 15/11/03? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P5. In rebuttal, 2nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not produce any documents. 4. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, water connection to consumer No.VKL/589/N is given to St. Mary's L.P.S, Perukavu under non-domestic category and complainant is the Headmaster of the said School. The main grievance of the complainant is that the School is situated at a level above the normal place and water supply was never available during the working hours of the school and water supply was given in alternate days and that too in nights. Opposite parties had issued bill on the basis of 28KL per day. Opposite parties have admitted in their version that water supply is available at alternate days, that consumer had an arrear of Rs.1,430/- as on 9/98 and no remittance was done till date and arrear accumulated to Rs.23,927/- as on 9/7/03. Ext. P1 is the copy of consumer bill dated 7/3/03 for Rs.21,543/- - opening and closing meter readings not recorded in Ext. P1 while status of meter recorded is 'Working'. Average consumption recorded is 28KL. Ext. P2 is the copy of the letter dated 21/3/03 addressed to Chief Engineer, Kerala Water Authority by the complainant stating that from the date of water connection to 21/3/03 he had used only 702KL water as per meter reading and opposite party had issued bill not on the basis of use of water. On a perusal of Ext. P2, it is seen that the authority concerned directed the official to inspect the site and file report on it. Ext. P3 is the copy of submission to Assistant Executive Engineer by the meter Inspector (AE). It is seen remarked by AE in Ext. P3 that "meter not working, remittance not done, the monthly average is 28KL and Rs. 206/- per month, and upto date arrears Rs. 21,751/-". Ext. P4 is the copy of the letter dated 22/3/99 from the complaint to 2nd opposite party requesting him to disconnect the water connection to consumer No.VKL/589/N due to non-availability of water during working hours and monthly rate being Rs.206/-. Ext. P5 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 15/11/03 for Rs.26,748/-. In Ext. P5 it is seen recorded meter status 'not working', previous meter reading recorded as on 11/7/03 is 702 KL. Copy of consumer bill dated 6/9/03 for Rs.25,310/- is also on the records. No documents furnished by opposite parties to substantiate the contention in their version. In view of the evidence available on records we find that water supply was not available regularly to consumer No. VKL/589/N since the said School is situated at elevated areas. Further opposite parties have admitted the same by stating that water supply was given at alternate days to each zone. Even in Ext. P1 meter readings not recorded though status of the meter stated therein was 'working'. Admittedly, as per Exts. P2 &P3 meter reading as on 21/3/03 was 702 KL. Immediately after the issuance of Ext. P1 bill dated 7/3/03 to complainant, he had requested the opposite party to disconnect water connection to consumer No.VKL/589/N. Complainant had never furnished any material to show remittance of water charges to opposite party. It is submitted by opposite parties that there was an arrear of Rs.1,430/- as on 9/98. Meter status was working as on Ext.P1 dated 7/3/03. After that it is seen reported by A.E by Ext. P3 dated 31/3/03 that meter 'not working'. In view of the foregoing discussion and evidence available on records we are of the considered opinion that since no meter change was effected prior to Ext. P1 and water supply was given at alternate days due to connection to premises being situated at an elevated area and meter reading reported as on 31/3/03 was of 702 KL, charging of 28 KL per month on the guess work by opposite parties would harm the interest of the consumer and would act against the principles of natural justice. 5. Taking into consideration of the overall situation we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if consumer is directed to pay water charges for 702KL. In the result, complaint is allowed. The bills dated 7/3/03, 6/9/03 & 15/11/03 issued to consumer No.VKL/589/N by opposite parties are hereby cancelled. Opposite parties are directed to collect water charges for 702KL from the complainant. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstance of the case. Parties are directed to 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 30th day of April, 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad. C.C.No. 215/2003 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Copy of consumer bill dated 07/3/2003 P2 : " letter dated 21/03/2003 P3 : " submission to Assistant Executive Engineer P4 : " letter dated 22/3/1999 P5 : " consumer bill dated 15/11/03 for Rs. 26,748/-.
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. 215/2003 Filed on 28/05/2003 Dated: 30..04..2010 Complainant: J. Thomas (Headmaster) St. Mary's L.P.S., Kundamanbhagom, Perukavu – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 573. (John D'cruz.T.C., present Headmaster)
(By Adv. Deepak Twinkle Sanal)
Opposite parties: Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. Assistant Engineer, K.W.A., P.T.P Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram. Managing Director, K.W.A., Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Santhamma Thomas) 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 19..01..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 27..02..2010, the Forum on 30..04..2010 delivered the following: ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.VKL-589-N, that the connection was given to St.Mary's L.P.S., Perukavu under non-domestic category, that the School is situated at a level above the normal place and water supply was not available during the working hours of the school, that water supply was available in alternate days and that too in nights, that opposite parties issued bill on the basis of 28KL per month and on enquiry by the complainant it was informed that 28 KL is the minimum, that on the basis of the above said consumption from 01/04/99 to 28/02/2003 at the rate of Rs. 206/-, complainant is liable to pay Rs. 9,890/- only but opposite parties issued bill for Rs. 2,175/-. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to raise bill on the basis of used water excluding penal interest. 2. Opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, that the connection is for commercial purpose, that water supply to entire Vilavoorkal Panchayat area is through Rural Water Supply Scheme to Vilavoorkal and the Panchayat is divided into 2 zones and water supply is given at alternate days to each zone in order to maintain sufficient pressure at elevated areas of the Panchayat, that the Provisional Invoice Card was issued to consumer and PIC fixed at 28 KL per month (at the rate of Rs.131/- upto 3/99 and Rs. 208/- per month from 4/99 onwards). Consumer had an arrear of Rs. 1,430/- as on 9/98 and no remittance was done till date and arrear accumulated to Rs. 23,927/-. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether supply of water was available to consumer regularly? Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as claimed by opposite parties vide bills dated 7/3/03, 6/9/03 and 15/11/03? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P5. In rebuttal, 2nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not produce any documents. 4. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, water connection to consumer No.VKL/589/N is given to St. Mary's L.P.S, Perukavu under non-domestic category and complainant is the Headmaster of the said School. The main grievance of the complainant is that the School is situated at a level above the normal place and water supply was never available during the working hours of the school and water supply was given in alternate days and that too in nights. Opposite parties had issued bill on the basis of 28KL per day. Opposite parties have admitted in their version that water supply is available at alternate days, that consumer had an arrear of Rs.1,430/- as on 9/98 and no remittance was done till date and arrear accumulated to Rs.23,927/- as on 9/7/03. Ext. P1 is the copy of consumer bill dated 7/3/03 for Rs.21,543/- - opening and closing meter readings not recorded in Ext. P1 while status of meter recorded is 'Working'. Average consumption recorded is 28KL. Ext. P2 is the copy of the letter dated 21/3/03 addressed to Chief Engineer, Kerala Water Authority by the complainant stating that from the date of water connection to 21/3/03 he had used only 702KL water as per meter reading and opposite party had issued bill not on the basis of use of water. On a perusal of Ext. P2, it is seen that the authority concerned directed the official to inspect the site and file report on it. Ext. P3 is the copy of submission to Assistant Executive Engineer by the meter Inspector (AE). It is seen remarked by AE in Ext. P3 that "meter not working, remittance not done, the monthly average is 28KL and Rs. 206/- per month, and upto date arrears Rs. 21,751/-". Ext. P4 is the copy of the letter dated 22/3/99 from the complaint to 2nd opposite party requesting him to disconnect the water connection to consumer No.VKL/589/N due to non-availability of water during working hours and monthly rate being Rs.206/-. Ext. P5 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 15/11/03 for Rs.26,748/-. In Ext. P5 it is seen recorded meter status 'not working', previous meter reading recorded as on 11/7/03 is 702 KL. Copy of consumer bill dated 6/9/03 for Rs.25,310/- is also on the records. No documents furnished by opposite parties to substantiate the contention in their version. In view of the evidence available on records we find that water supply was not available regularly to consumer No. VKL/589/N since the said School is situated at elevated areas. Further opposite parties have admitted the same by stating that water supply was given at alternate days to each zone. Even in Ext. P1 meter readings not recorded though status of the meter stated therein was 'working'. Admittedly, as per Exts. P2 &P3 meter reading as on 21/3/03 was 702 KL. Immediately after the issuance of Ext. P1 bill dated 7/3/03 to complainant, he had requested the opposite party to disconnect water connection to consumer No.VKL/589/N. Complainant had never furnished any material to show remittance of water charges to opposite party. It is submitted by opposite parties that there was an arrear of Rs.1,430/- as on 9/98. Meter status was working as on Ext.P1 dated 7/3/03. After that it is seen reported by A.E by Ext. P3 dated 31/3/03 that meter 'not working'. In view of the foregoing discussion and evidence available on records we are of the considered opinion that since no meter change was effected prior to Ext. P1 and water supply was given at alternate days due to connection to premises being situated at an elevated area and meter reading reported as on 31/3/03 was of 702 KL, charging of 28 KL per month on the guess work by opposite parties would harm the interest of the consumer and would act against the principles of natural justice. 5. Taking into consideration of the overall situation we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if consumer is directed to pay water charges for 702KL. In the result, complaint is allowed. The bills dated 7/3/03, 6/9/03 & 15/11/03 issued to consumer No.VKL/589/N by opposite parties are hereby cancelled. Opposite parties are directed to collect water charges for 702KL from the complainant. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstance of the case. Parties are directed to 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 30th day of April, 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad. C.C.No. 215/2003 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Copy of consumer bill dated 07/3/2003 P2 : " letter dated 21/03/2003 P3 : " submission to Assistant Executive Engineer P4 : " letter dated 22/3/1999 P5 : " consumer bill dated 15/11/03 for Rs. 26,748/-.
III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL IV. Opposite parties' documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
| | [HONABLE MR. JUSTICE President] President[HONORABLE MR. Sri G. Sivaprasad] PRESIDENT[ Smt. Beena Kumari. A] Member | | 
