THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 210/09
Monday, the 30th day of May, 2011.
Petitioner : Anandavallyamma,
Anandabhavan,
Muttambalam P.O
Kottayam.
(By Adv. Sajan A Varghese)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The Kerala Water Authority
reptd. by its Exe. Engineer,
P.H. Division, Kottayam
2) The Asst. Exe. Engineer,
Water Works Sub Division,
Kerala Water Authority,
Kottayam.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner filed on 15..7..2009 is as follows:
Petitioner is a consumer of the first opposite party with vide consumer No. K/05/100/D under Water Works Sub Division of second opposite party. Water connection was availed for domestic purpose. As per the invoice issued by the second opposite party monthly water charges remitted by the petitioner was Rs. 29/-. Petitioner remitted the water charges in advance. On 28..9..2007 petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 1158/- to the opposite party. On 14..11..2007 petitioner remitted an amount of Rs. 279/- to the opposite party as water charges. In the month of May 2009 opposite party issued a demand notice to the petitioner for Rs. 8046/-. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in issuing the additional bill amount to deficiency in service. So, petitioner prays for cancellation of the bill, compensation and cost of the proceedings.
-2-
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. Opposite party admitted remittance of the water charges by the petitioner up to 6/08. Monthly amounts given in the invoice is changed as per the actual consumption of the consumer. Opposite party collected water charges according to the existing rules and regulations of Kerala Water Authority based on the meter reading. Opposite party admitted the advance payment made by the petitioner. The disputed bill is issued based on the meter reading for the consumption of water up to 7/09. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party.
Point No. 1
Copy of the disputed demand notice issued by the opposite party produced is marked as Ext. A3. According to the opposite party petitioner remitted water charges up to 6/08 the demand is with regard to the arrear amount for the actual consumption of water by the consumer. Admittedly on 14..11..2007 petitioner remitted the water charges up to 6/08. At the time of remittance the monthly meter charge / slab fixed for the petitioner was Rs. 42/- The consumer personal ledger is produced by the opposite party and same is marked as Ext. B1. From Ext. B1 it can be see that meter
-3-
reading of the petitioner was taken on 12..6..2006, 6..8..2007, 30..11..2007, 24..11..2007, 31..3..2009 and 17..4..2009.
As per regulation 13 (b) of Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) regulation 1991 the authority may fix the monthly rate of water charges of a consumer based on his average consumption of water for any previous six months in case of existing connection. Regulation also states that charges fixed shall be revised if the consumption found o have increased or decreased. Here the opposite party has not fixed the water charges and intimated the consumer about the slab which is applicable to the consumer. Further more from Ext. A3 it can be seen that it is not a demand legally made. Ext. A3 is a demand written on a plain paper without any official marking or seal demanding the arrears. As per Regulation 13 (d) An adjustment bill in Form No. IX shall be issued once in every six month to the consumer indicating the excess or short remitted by the consumer. Regulation 14 states that a date shall be shown in the bill for payment of dues computed as per section 31 and 33 of the act. In our view non fixation of the slab of the petitioner and no proper demands of the water charges to the consumer amounts to deficiency in service. Further more from the consumer personal ledger it can be seen that without fixing the slab of the consumer fine is imposed to the consumer from 7/06 to 7/09.From Ext. B1 it can be water charges of the petitioner is fixed as 42 on 7/06. On 12/07 the slab of the petitioner was fixed as 571/-. Later on 9/08 the water charges of the petitioner is re fixed as 1755/-. But no records were produced to show that intimation with regard to the change of water charge was given to the petitioner. So, the act of the opposite party in our view amount to clear deficiency in service. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.
-4-
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1 petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to relief sought for. In the result the demand for an amount of Rs. 2046/- is cancelled. Opposite party is ordered to issue revised bill as per regulation without levying penal charges for the actual consumption of water. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered. Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order.
of the copy of this order.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the Petitioner
Ext. A1: Copy of the demand Dtd: 28..9..2007.
Ext. A2: Copy of the bill Dtd: 14..11..2007
Ext. A3: Copy of the calculation slip
Documents for the opposite party:
Ext. B1: Consumer personal ledger of the petitioner.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
Received on / Despatched on
