IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 132/06 Between: K.K. Cherianjee, Mukkattu Kochupurackal, T.B. Road (Zion School), Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. Abraham George Pachayil) .... Complainant And: 1. The Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Public Health Centre, Pathanamthitta. - The Asst. Executive Engineer,
Public Health Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. G. Ajithkumar) .... Opposite parties. ORDERSri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is that he was a consumer of the opposite parties with consumer No.899/PTA and he was paying the regular bills. The opposite parties disconnected his water connection on 14.05.2003 and the complainant paid all dues as per the bills issued by the opposite parties. However, the opposite parties issued the bill for one more year after the disconnection due to the fault of the billing section. The complainant duly informed the matter to the second opposite party for information and action. Later, the complainant received a letter dated 29.05.2005 from the second opposite party intimating that the revenue recovery proceedings would be initiated for recovery of Rs.14,115/- which is due from the complainant. The amount stated in the letter is the additional bill issued for a period of one year when the complainant was having no water connection. It occurred due to the fact that actually the connection was disconnected on 04.05.2003 and as per the records of the opposite parties, the disconnection is on 14.05.2004. The complainant was not provided with a detailed bill stating the details of dues after disconnection. Hence this complaint for issuing appropriate orders against the opposite parties for cancelling the bill issued to the complainant for the period of one year after the disconnection and not to proceed with the revenue recovery proceedings. 3. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed a version with the following contentions: The complainant has remitted only the minimum water charge as per the minimum tariff fixed upto March 1999. But the consumption of the complainant was much higher than the minimum slab. Hence a bill was served on 25.01.2002 for Rs.13,672/- for the additional quantity consumed. The complainant requested for instalments which was allowed and directed the complainant to pay Rs.5,000/- on 30.04.2002, Rs.4,336/- on 13.05.2002 and Rs.4,336/- on 13.06.2002. Accordingly, the complainant paid the first 2 intalments and not paid the third instalment and regular the monthly tariff rate. The complainant is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,336/- and the monthly water charge from July 2002 to May 2003. A bill for water charges for the said period and the arrears was served on the complainant on 29.03.2003 for a sum of Rs.10,513/-. The complainant did not paid the amount and hence his water connection was disconnected on 04.05.2003. The complainant had taken the water connection on 12.08.1992 and thereafter periodical meter reading was taken from time to time. The complainant had remitted the minimum water charges at Rs.102/- ,per month for the consumption of 13 KL/month. But the consumption of water is higher than the minimum. The average consumption for the period from 16.06.1999 to 25.10.1999 was 65KL/month. The average consumption from 26.10.1999 to 23.02.2000 was 51KL/month and from 24.02.2000 to 15.07.2000 was 55.8KL/month and 16.07.2000 to 29.09.2000 was 52KL/month and from 30.09.2000 to 20.01.2001 was 38.7KL/month and from 21.01.2001 to 25.07.2001 was 29KL/month and from 26.07.2001 to 28.11.2001 was 40.5KL/month. 4. On 23.03.2002 it was found that there is no meter and the complainant was using water without the meter. The complainant produced a theft certificate dated 11.01.2002 from the Police Station, Pathanamthitta stating that the meter was stolen during January 2002. New meter was installed only on 22.06.2002. Thereafter, the average consumption of water for the period from 23.06.2002 to 13.02.2003 was 72.5 KL/month; from 14.02.2003 to 30.04.2003 was 93 KL/month. But the complainant has not remitted the water charges and the arrears. Hence, the respondent was constrained to disconnect the complainant’s water connection on 04.05.2003. The opposite parties issued a notice dated 29.05.2005 for Rs.14,115/- as the balance amount due as on 04.05.2003, which includes the water charges for the use of water in excess than the minimum allowed to use. The complainant has total arrears of Rs.14,115/- and he is liable to pay the same. He has not made the payment so far. In the circumstance, the only remedy left to the opposite parties is to collect the arrears by R.R. proceedings. The water charges were prepared on the basis of meter reading and the complainant has not filed any complaint with regard to arrears of rent or with regard to the accuracy of the meter. With the above contentions, the opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint for their cost. 5. On the above pleadings, the following points were raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum? (2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 6. The evidence of the complainant consists of the proof affidavit and documents filed by him. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. For the opposite parties, the second opposite party filed a proof affidavit and one document. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the second opposite party was examined as DW1 and the document produced is marked as Ext.B1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard. 7. Points 1 to 3: The complainant’s case is that he had been served with illegal bills by the opposite parties and the said bills were issued after the disconnection of his water connection and after the payment of all arrears and dues. The act of the opposite parties is illegal and hence the complainant prays for quashing the unjust bills issued by the opposite parties against him. 8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit along with 2 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced along with the proof affidavit were marked as Exts.A1 and A2 and other 2 documents produced at the time of his examination were marked as Exts.A3 and A4. Ext.A1 is the certified photocopy of the bill No.6235 dated 10.07.2003 demanding Rs.12,432/- issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A2 is the reply dated 26.02.2009 issued by the second opposite party in connection with the complainant’s application dated 13.02.2009 under Right to Information Act. Ext.A3 is the certified photocopy of the Consumer Personal Ledger in respect of the complainant’s water connection from 05.02.1998 to 30.04.2003. Ext.A4 is the certified photocopy of the Field Book for Meter Reading pertaining to the complainant’s water connection from 25.11.2002 to 30.04.2003. Exts.A1 to A4 were obtained by the complainant under the Right to Information Act. 9. On the other hand, the opposite parties’ contention is that the complainant’s water connection was disconnected on 4.05.2003. The said disconnection was not on the basis of the complainant’s request, but due to non-payment of the arrears. All the bills issued were legal and genuine and are based on the meter readings recorded in the Consumer Personal Ledger. They denied that the complainant had paid all the dues. The complainant had only paid the monthly tariff for the consumption of 13 KL/month. But the complainant’s consumption is more than the permitted quantity. So the complainant is liable to pay the water charges for the excess quantity of water consumed. But he had not paid the entire dues demanded by the opposite parties. He never approached for the disconnection and his connection was disconnected for the non-payment of the arrears. The total arrears due from the complainant upto 04.05.2003 is Rs.14,115/- and the complainant is liable to pay the same. The complainant has not raised any complaint regarding the arrears or about the accuracy of the meter. 10. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, the second opposite party filed a proof affidavit along with one document. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the second opposite party was examined as DW1 and the document produced is marked as Ext.B1. Ext.B1 is the certified photocopy of the Consumer Personal Ledger in respect of the complainant from 05.02.1998 to 30.04.2003. Exts.A3 and B1 are one and the same. 11. On the basis of the averments and the contentions of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. On going through the proof affidavit of the complainant, we cannot find any specific case against the opposite parties. In the proof affidavit the complainant had stated so many things, which does not pin point any specific deficiency of service against the opposite parties. In paragraph 21 of the proof affidavit is as follows: “Hence I approached this Hon’ble Court for getting the bills issued against me quashed as they are issued without any basis”. Paragraph 25 of the proof affidavit is as follows: “Hence evidence adducing by me may also be looked into and I pray that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to pass an order quashing the unjust bills against me issued by the opposite parties”. But he had not produced or marked any bills for quashing or he had not produced any evidence for substantiating his allegations. He had produced 4 documents. Out of the 4 documents, the first document i.e. Ext.A1 which is the copy of a bill dated 10.07.2002 issued by the opposite parties demanding Rs.12,432/-. But it is not mentioned in his complaint. On the other hand, a bill dated 29.05.2005 for Rs.14,115/- is referred in the complaint. But no such bill is produced in this case. At the same time, he had mentioned so many bills in his proof affidavit. Bu the above referred bills were not produced before this Forum. If the intention of the complainant is to set aside Ext.A1 bill, we cannot help the complainant as the said bill is issued in the year 2003 and the complaint is filed in the year 2006 and the cause of action of the complainant is barred by limitation. 12. The complainant, PW1, in his deposition clearly stated as follows: “Hmtcm amkhpw F{X Intem en shÅw D]tbmKn¡mhp¶Xns\¸ F\n¡dnbnÓ. He further deposed “_me³kv XpIbmb 4,336/cq]m AS¨nÓ. In the light of the above deposition, the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant is a defaulter and the bills issued to the complainant are for the excess water consumed by the complainant cannot be discarded. From the over all facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot find a specific prayer for redressing a specific grievance. Complainant’s allegations are vague and is without evidence. Hence we could not find any deficiency of service against the opposite parties. In the circumstance, we are constrained to dismiss the complaint. 13. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 8th day of January, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : K.K. Cheriyanjee. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Certified photocopy of the bill No.6235 dated 10.07.2003 for Rs.12,432/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. A2 : Letter dated 26.02.2009 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant. A3 : Certified photocopy of the Consumer Personal Ledger in respect of the complainant’s water connection from 05.02.1998 to 30.04.2003. A4 : Certified photocopy of the Field Book for Meter Reading pertaining to the complainant’s water connection from 25.11.2002 to 30.04.2003. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : V. Vasanthakumar. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Certified photocopy of the Consumer Personal Ledger in respect of the complainant from 05.02.1998 to 30.04.2003. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) K.K. Cherianjee, Mukkattu Kochupurackal, T.B. Road (Zion School), Pathanamthitta. (2) The Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Public Health Centre, Pathanamthitta. (3) The Asst. Executive Engineer, Public Health Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority, Pathanamthitta. (4) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
