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. 159/2005 Filed on 26.05.2005

Dated : 15.01.2009

Complainants:

1. U. Velayudhan, K.V. Bhavan, Keezhattingal, Attingal – 695 101.

Addl. Complainant:

2. K.V. Chandrika, K.V. Bhavan, Keezhattingal, Chirayinkeezhu.

Opposite parties:

1. Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Valiyakunnu, Attingal.

    

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Valiyakunnu, Attingal.

    

3. The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. V.S. Hareendranath)

This O.P having been heard on 15.12.2008, the Forum on 15.01.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the 1^st complainant is a consumer and consumer No. KR 484 stands in the name of the 1^st complainant. 1^st complainant had remitted water charges till

31.03.2002. His mode of payment was payment in advance. The complainant could not remit the advance payment in the year 2004 since opposite parties were reluctant to receive the same on the ground that the complainant has committed arrears to the tune of Rs, 5,984/-. Thereafter the 1^st

complainant received disconnection notice dated 20.11.2004 wherein the reasons stated is that water charges upto 11/2004 of Rs. 5984/- was not remitted. Most days water was not made available through pipes. The 1^st complainant had dug and constructed well in his premises and installed pump set to lift

water for the use of the complainant. Hence there is no scope for arrear amount as claimed by the opposite parties. On 28.12.2004 1^st complainant filed an appeal before the 2^nd opposite party, but so far no decision was taken by the 2^nd opposite party. Hence this complaint to quash the bill or

disconnection notice for an amount of Rs. 5984/- issued by the opposite parties and to direct the opposite parties not to disconnect the connection till the disposal of the complaint.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Complainant had paid the minimum water charges upto 03/04. The bills were issued for excess water used by the consumer over and above the minimum consumption. Periodical meter readings were taken and water charges bills were issued. After calculating the meter readings the bill No. 831 amounting to Rs. 6373/- was issued on 10/03 and bill No. 593 for Rs. 5784/- was issued on 06.04.2004. Since the consumer was not prepared to remit the amount a bill for Rs. 5984/- together with disconnection notice was issued to the consumer. The consumer was in the habit of using water over and above the minimum quantity as such he was served with a bill for the actual quantity of water used by the consumer. The bills were issued as per the meter readings and in accordance with the rules and regulations. Complaint is devoid of any merits. Since the expenditure for supplying drinking water is spent from the State Exchequer the opposite parties have every right to recover the arrears of water charges. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arises for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get disconnection advice dated 20.11.2004 quashed?

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

3. Other reliefs and costs.

In support of the complaint, complainant's son has been examined and cross examined by the opposite party and marked Exts. P1 to P4. In rebuttal 2^nd opposite party has filed affidavit and marked Exts. D1 to D3. 2^nd opposite party has been cross examined by the complainant.

Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, 1^st complainant is a consumer and consumer No. KR 484 stands in the name of the 1^st complainant and upon his death, the 2^nd complainant has been impleaded. Submission urged by the complainant is that complainant had remitted water charges till 31^st March 2004 without

default by making payment in advance, that opposite party was reluctant to receive the next year's advance payment, and that complainant was informed by the opposite parties that without remitting the arrear amount of Rs. 5984/- the next year's payment could not be accepted by the opposite parties. Submission by the complainant is that complainant had received a disconnection notice dated 20.11.2004 from the opposite party wherein the reasons stated is that water charges upto 11/04 of Rs. 5984/- was not remitted. Ext. P2 is the said disconnection notice. Ext. P3 is the copy of the notice addressed to the 2^nd opposite party by the complainant. In Ext. P2 it is mentioned by the complainant that the disconnection notice was received by the complainant on 10^th December. It is not clear from

the said notice that how was the said arrear amount calculated by the opposite party, prior to the said notice date, complainant was not informed by the opposite party of the arrear amount if any due to the opposite party, though meter reading was taken by the opposite party in due course. It is stated in Ext. D3 letter addressed to the opposite party that complainant is aged 91 and is residing along with his mentally challenged daughter, that complainant dug and constructed well in his premises and installed pump set thereby water is lifted for the use of the complainant and that most days water was not made available through pipes. Submission by the complainant is that no prior bills showing arrears had ever been issued to the complainant prior to disconnection notice. Ext. P4 is the courier receipt addressed to the 2^nd opposite party. It has been rebutted by opposite parties by submitting that bills were issued for

excess water used by the consumer over and above the minimum consumption, that bill No. 831 amounting to Rs. 6373/- was issued on 10/03 and a bill No. 593 for Rs. 5784/- was issued on 06.04.2004 and that since the consumer was not prepared to remit the amount, a bill for Rs. 5984/- together with disconnection notice was issued to the consumer. In his examination in chief, DW1 has deposed that bill for excess water consumption was issued to the complainant on 27.11.2003 by Ext. D2. On perusal of Ext. D2 it is found that balance due from the complainant is to the tune of Rs. 6373/-. Regarding the details of amount to be remitted, it is stated that domestic water charges from 11/95 to 3/99 at the rate of Rs. 70x41 KL, from 04/99 to 02/03 at the rate of Rs. 90x47 KL and from 03/03 to 03/04 at the rate of Rs. 90x13 KL. It is pertinent to note that the arrear amount is seen calculated from 11/95 to 03/04 in one stretch. As per provisions of the Act, the actual amount due will be ascertained on reading the meter and necessary adjustment bill showing the amount due to bill will be sent to the complainant once in six months. From Ext. D2 it is crystal clear that the actual amount was not ascertained and intimated the complainant prior to 27.11.2003 by the opposite party. It is pertinent to note that Ext. D2 bill is dated 27.11.2003, but ascertainment on reading the meter upto 03/04 is seen included in Ext. D2. It is quite strange to see how the reading taken on 03/04 is included in the bill dated 27.11.2003. Normally bill has to be prepared immediately after taking the reading. There is another bill dated 06.04.2004 on the record, wherein the details of amount to be remitted is seen different from the details stated in Ext. D2, and the balance due from the consumer in the said bill is stated as Rs. 5784/-. The above said bill is not seen marked by the opposite party. Ext. P2/D1 is the disconnection notice dated 29.11.2004 wherein the water charges upto 11/04 claimed by the opposite party is to the tune of Rs. 5984/-. On going through the Ext. D2 we are of the considered opinion that, opposite parties failed to issue bills for every six months. The bill issued for a period of 8 years and 4 months is liable to be quashed. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

In the result, complaint is allowed. The bill/disconnection advice dated 29.11.2004 for Rs. 5,984/- issued by the opposite party is hereby quashed. Opposite parties shall not disconnect the house connection till the same is transferred in the name of the 2^nd complainant. 2^nd complainant shall apply for transfer of

house connection in her name as stipulated under the provisions of Water Supply Regulations within two months from the date of receipt of this order. There will be no order as to compensation and cost in the facts and circumstances of the case.

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 day of 15^th January 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 159/2005

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - A.V. Chandran

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Authorization letter dated 26.05.2005.

P2 - Photocopy of disconnection advice dated 29.11.2004.

P3 - Copy of letter dated 28.12.2004.

P4 - Copy of courier consignment note dated 28.12.2004.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Radhakrishnan

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of disconnection notice dated 29.11.2004.

D2 - Photocopy of bill No. 831 dated 27.11.2003.

D3 - Photocopy of consumptional ledger of con. No. K.R 484 with date of connection 10.07.1993.

D3(a) - Photocopy of consumptional ledger dated 10.07.1993.

D3(b) - Photocopy of consumptional ledger dated 10.07.1993.

D3(c) - Photocopy of consumptional ledger dated 10.07.1993.

PRESIDENT