CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.211/09
Saturday the 21st day of May, 2011
Petitioner : Joji Joy,
Proprietor,
Thomas Rubbers Development
Plot, Poovanthuruth PO,
Kottayam.
(Adv. Sajan A Varghese)
Vs.
Opposite party : Kerala Water Authority,
Rep. by its Executive Engineer,
P.H. Sub Division, KWA,
Kottayam.
2) The Asst.Executive Engineer,
P.H. Sub Division, KWA, Kottayam.
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
The case of the petitioner, filed on 15/7/09, is as follows:-
Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party Water Authority. Petitioner is the proprietor of Thomas Rubbers from the year 2003. According to the petitioner she is conducting a Rubber powdering unit as a means of her livelihood. Petitioner is unaware of the water connection in the premises after purchase of the unit in 2003 . Opposite party is not inspecting the water meter and was taking the water meter recording. On 27/5/09 opposite party issued a bill to the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 47,730/-, alleging arrears upto 4/2009. According to the petitioner the said bill is issued without any basis and amounts to deficiency in service. So petitioner prays for cancellation of the bill dtd 27/5/09 for an amount of Rs.47,730/-. Petitioner claim Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the hardships and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party water connection is availed on 2/2/1997 and the water charges were paid upto December 1998. Before purchasing the industrial plot it is duty of the petitioner to verify whether there were any arrears regarding water charges before purchasing the plot. Opposite party denied the averments of the petitioner that he was not aware of the water connection in the premises. According to the opposite party the bill was issued based on the meter reading from 1/99 to 4/09. The bill issued to the petitioner is legal and proper. So opposite party prays for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
iii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext.A1 document on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to Ext.B11 document on the side of opposite parties.
Point No.1
The 1st contention of the petitioner is that she is not aware about the water connection of the industrial plot during the time of purchase in 2003. We cannot agree with said contention of the petitioner, because it is the duty of the petitioner to verify whether there are any arrears regarding the water charges before he owned the plot. Further more from Ext.B2 consent letter it can be seen that petitioner was aware of the water connection in his premises. The next question to be decided is whether the bill issued to the petitioner dtd 31/5/09 amounts to deficiency in service. Copy of the disputed bill is produced by the petitioner and the same is marked as Ext.A1. Ext.A1 bill is for an amount of Rs.47,730/-, a demand for arrear for a period from 2004 to 2005. Opposite party produced consumer personal ledger of the petitioner and the same is marked as Ext.B10 and Ext.B11. From Ext.B10 document it can be seen that meter reading is not taken properly.
Regulation 13 of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulation, 1991 stipulates the way in which provisional invoice card is to be issued and the mode of assessment. It is also stipulated that the meter reading are to be taken at an interval of 6 months and based on the average consumption provisional invoice card and additional bills are to be issued to the consumers. In the present case, opposite party / KWA failed to follow the provisions of Regulation 13 of KWA Regulations 1991. The aforesaid omission on the part of opposite party would amounts to deficiency in service. Definitely the petitioner / consumer will be put in trouble by demanding arrear of water charges ranging for a period more than 5 years in lump sum. It is the duty of the opposite party / KWA to see that additional / arrear bills are issued without much delay. So opposite party is not entitled to get any penal charges or penal interest on the actual amount due by way of arrears of water charges. Admittedly A1 bill is issued without following the provisions of Regulation 13 of KWA Regulations 1991 by claiming water charges with penal interest and penal charges. So A1 bill is liable to be cancelled. In our view demand of arrear as per Ext.A1 bill amount to deficiency in service. So point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1,the petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to reliefs sought for.
In the result Ext.A1 bill is cancelled. Opposite party / KWA will be at liberty to issue arrear bill for the actually consumed water without claiming any penal charges or penal interest. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no costs and compensation is ordered.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of May, 2011
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A- copy of the bill dtd 27/5/09
Documents of the opposite party
Ext.B1-Photocopy of the agreement
Ext.B2-Consent letter
Ext.B3-photocopy of letter
Ext.B4-photocopy of application for the water supply
Ext.B5-photocopy of the provisional registration certificate
Ext.B6-consent letter of K.P.Appukuttan
Ext.B7-photocopy of site plan
Ext.B8-photocopy of estimate
Ext.B9-photocopy of the plan
Ext B10-consumer personal ledger of the petitioner
Ext.10-consumer personal ledger of the petitioner
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
