BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 103/2008 Filed on 19.05.2008

Dated : 29.11.2008

Complainant:

Wilson. T, S/o Thomas, Nisi Cottage, Kalluvila, Palappooru, Vellayani P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite parties:

1. The Managing Director, K.W.A, Vellayambalam, Tvpm.

    

2. Junior Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Kuriathi Section, Tvpm.

    

3. Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Kuriathi Section, Tvpm.

    

4. Assistant Engineer, Water Works Sub Division, K.W.A, Tvpm.

This O.P having been heard on 30.10.2008, the Forum on 29.11.2008 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of Kerala Water Authority with consumer No. KTM/1973/D. Complainant has been remitting water bills without default. On 16.05.2008 at about 12.30 p.m opposite parties and the other officials came to complainant's residence and informed his wife that complainant has misused water for non-domestic purpose and disconnected the water connection on 16.05.2008 and directed the complainant to remit fine and opposite parties obtained the signature of complainant's wife in several papers. Complainant has never used water for non-domestic purpose as alleged by the opposite parties. Opposite party has issued a notice of disconnection on 16.05.2008. The action of the opposite parties will amount to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint for restoration of water connection and for compensation of Rs. 25000/- from the opposite parties.

Opposite parties did not appear in spite of service of notice. No version filed. Hence opposite parties set exparte.

The points that would arise for consideration are:-

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

2. Whether complainant is entitled to get water connection restored?

3. Other reliefs and costs.

To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P6(b).

Points (i) to (iii):- It has been the case of the complainant that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties with consumer number KTM/1973/D and has been remitting the water bills without default and that on 16.05.2008 at about 12.30 p.m 2^nd opposite party and other officials came to complainant's

residence and informed his wife that complainant has misused water for watering coconut trees and that opposite parties disconnected the water connection and directed the complainant to remit fine after obtaining the signature of complainant's wife in papers. Ext. P1 is the copy of notice issued to complainant. As per Ext. P1 the site inspection was on 16.05.2008 and date of notice was also on 16.05.2008. The reasons for disconnection as per Ext. P1 are:

1. Water for domestic purpose is used for non-domestic purpose.

2. Water meter is not functioning which has to be replaced with a workable meter at complainant's cost with the consent of the opposite parties.

3. Records showing water connection are not given to the officials who inspected the premises.

On a perusal of Ext. P1, it is seen that complainant was not given the reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the date of notice and date of disconnection are one and the same, i.e; 16.05.2008, thereby it can be inferred that the said disconnection is against the principles of natural justice. No prior notice or warning was seen given by opposite parties to the complainant showing any violation of water supply regulations. Ext. P2 is the copy of the receipt dated 28.04.2008 issued by the opposite party. As per Ext.P2 complainant has remitted bill amount on 16.05.2008. Ext. P3 is the copy of the bill dated 28.04.2008. On a perusal of Ext. P3, it is seen that meter number is 38154 and nothing is mentioned about the status of the meter. It is pertinent to note that Ext. P3 is the spot bill, wherein present reading is recorded, while prior reading is not recorded. Bimonthly water charge as per Ext. P3 is Rs. 25/-, but additional amount claimed is Rs. 221/- and total amount to be remitted is Rs. 256/-. Last date for remitting the bill amount without fine is 27 May 2008. Last date with fine not to disconnect the connection is 11 June 2008. The said amount is seen remitted by the complainant by Ext. P2. Ext. P4 is the copy of consumer's meter card issued by the opposite party. On a perusal of Ext. P4 it is seen that the date of connection was 28.09.2005, last meter reading was taken on 02/2008. On 02/2008, meter reading was 307 KL and as per Ext. P3 bill last meter reading was on 30.04.2008, but prior reading date and reading are not seen mentioned, it is recorded that prior bimonthly consumption as 23 KL, while bimonthly consumption on 30.04.2008 is not recorded. As per statement of account seen in Ext. P3, bimonthly water charge is Rs. 25/- and additional charge is Rs. 221/-. The additional charge includes arrears of Rs. 219/- and inspection charge of Rs. 2/-. Complainant has remitted the entire amount on 16.05.2008 as per Ext. P2. Though the last bill date was 28.04.2008 as per Ext. P3, the reading date is mentioned as 30.04.2008. It is quite strange to see how the reading taken on 30.04.2008 by a spot biller is included in the spot bill dated 28.04.2008. Normally, bill has to be prepared after taking reading. In this case, no other bill is seen issued by the opposite party after 30.04.2008. What has been issued is a notice dated 16.05.2008 by Ext. P1, wherein site inspection dated 16.05.2008. Before disconnecting the said connection, opposite party has to hear the complainant. Complainant in his affidavit denied the reasons for disconnection stated in Ext. P1 notice. In his proof affidavit complainant stated that he had not used water for non-domestic purposes as stated in Ext. P1 notice. On seeing the remaining stagnant waste water around the coconut tree, complainant submits, opposite parties misunderstood that the complainant has used the water for non-domestic purposes. Further, complainant has deposed that water meter is functioning well and the meter reading was taken by the spot biller on 28.04.2008 who never recorded non-working of the meter in the 'column status' of the bill dated 28.04.2008. Opposite parties did not enter appearance in spite of acceptance of notice nor filed version or affidavit, nor cross examined the complainant. Hence we are inclined to accept the affidavit of the complainant as such. Complainant has established his case by way of proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P6. Hence we find the disconnection of water connection of the complainant's premise by opposite party is against the principles of natural justice and equity. Deficiency in service proved. To meet the ends of justice and equity immediate restoration of water connection is a must.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall reconnect the water connection of consumer number KTM/1973/D within a week from the date of receipt of this order free of cost. 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 29^th November 2008.

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 103/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Wilson

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of notice dated 16.05.2008 issued by 3^rd opposite

party.

P2 - Photocopy of receipt No. AF 00001330 of Bill No. 301177

dated 28.04.2008.

P3 - Photocopy of demand and disconnection notice dated

28.04.2008.

P4 - Photocopy of consumer's meter card of Meter No. B 38154 of

Con. No. KTM 1973.

P5 - Photocopy of approved plan

P6 - Photocopy of receipt of land tax dated 24.04.2008.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT