BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.15/2009 Order dated this the 18th day of May 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.M.S.Padmanabha S/o Late Manchaiah, 1st Cross, Gandhinagar, Mandya. (By Sri.H.N.Shyam Sundar., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. The Executive Engineer, K.U.W.S. & D. Board, Maintenance Division, Bandigowda Layout, Mandya. 2. The Commissioner, Mandya Municipality, Mandya City, Mandya. (By Sri.H.M.Narayana., Advocate for 1st O.P. & Sri.M.B.Rajashekar., Advocate for 2nd O.P.) Date of complaint 12.02.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 20.02.2009 Date of order 18.05.2009 Total Period 2 Months 28 Days Result The complaint is partly allowed, directing 2nd Opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- and 1st Opposite party to pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within 3 months. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the 1st Opposite party to issue demand notice deducting the water tax paid already and also to award compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the deficiency in service against the Opposite parties. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant has obtained water connection originally from 2nd Opposite party from 01.09.1997 and for the year 1997-98 has deposited Rs.239/- on 29.03.2003 and again Rs.1,080/- for the year 1998-99 to 1999-2000 on 29.03.2003. Thereafter, the 1st Opposite party is the service provider of the water facility to the house of the complainant under customer No.3994 and in R.R.No.4012. Again on 22.03.2005 the complainant deposited Rs.1,623/- for the year 2000-01 to 2002-03, again Rs.1,080/- on 04.06.2007 for the year 2003-05 to the 1st Opposite party, but the 1st Opposite party issued demand notice on 17.06.2007 for Rs.4,735/-, though the complainant was due of Rs.540/- for two months. This was brought to the notice of 1st Opposite party by issuing notice and 1st Opposite party issued reply on 06.08.2007 stating that in the year 2003 the water supply was handed over to 1st Opposite party by 2nd Opposite party and in that regard there is no entry of payment on 29.03.2003. Then, the complainant has approached 2nd Opposite party and seeing the receipts, and also sent a requisition to 1st Opposite party and 2nd Opposite party also sent a letter to the complainant, stating that the complainant has deposited the amount Rs.239/- and Rs.1,080/- on 29.03.2003 and deduct the same and issue bill. In spite of it, 1st Opposite party has issued demand notice for Rs.5,772/. Therefore, the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and therefore, the present complaint is filed seeking the above reliefs. 3. Notices were served on the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties. 2nd Opposite party has remained exparte. 1st Opposite party has filed version, admitting the water connection to the complainant house and also admitted the deposit of Rs.230/- and Rs.1,080/- on 29.03.2003, but denied that Rs.1,623/- was deposited on 22.03.2005 for the year 2001 to 2002-03. Admitting the exchange of notice, 1st Opposite party contended that in the records handed over by the 2nd Opposite party Municipality, there is arrears of Rs.2,939/- up to 2002-03 and there is no entry of deposit of Rs.239/- and Rs.1,080/- on 29.03.2003. Thereafter, 2nd Opposite party Commissioner sent letter stating that Rs.239/- and Rs.1,080/- was deposited on 29.03.2003 and deducting the same to issue demand notice. On that basis by deducting the amount for the balance as on 28.02.2009 bill was issued for Rs.3,384/-. Therefore, the 1st Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. During trial, the complainant is examined and has produced Ex.C.1 to C.12. The 1st Opposite party witness is examined and has produced Ex.R.1 to R.8 and calculation sheet and also copy of the ledger. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the 1st Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in issuing water bills? 2. Whether the 2nd Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The undisputed facts are that the complainant is the Consumer of the water supply originally by 2nd Opposite party and thereafter from 2003 by 1st Opposite party. It is admitted fact that the 1st Opposite party has issued water bills Ex.C.10, C.11 and later C.12. Ex.C.10 is dated 02.03.2009 and it is for Rs.5,463/-, Ex.C.11 is the water bill on 02.03.2009 for Rs.3,463/-, Ex.C.12 is dated 02.02.2009 for Rs.5,372/-. Now, the complainant has disputed the bills. It is undisputed that the complainant has deposited Rs.1,623/- for the year 2000-01 to 2002-03 (3 years) at the rate of 540 on 22.03.2005 and again as per Ex.C.5 on 04.06.2007 Rs.1,080/- as part payment for which year, there is no mention. Ex.C.1 is the bill for obtaining water connection from 2nd Opposite party. The complainant has produced Ex.C.2 & C.3, the receipt issued by 2nd Opposite party for Rs.239/- and Rs.1,080/-, they are for the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 to 1999-2000. The records reveal that Ex.C.3 is in the name of B.Manchaiah and Ex.C.2 is in the name of complainant, but 2nd Opposite party has not entered the deposit of this amount in the ledger. Therefore, that amount was shown as balance with other arrears, on that basis 1st Opposite party was issuing water bills. Thereafter, the complainant has issued legal notice dated 13.07.2007 as per Ex.C.6 and the 1st Opposite party has sent reply Ex.C.7, stating that there is still balance of Rs.4,735/- as per the register. The complainant has produced the letter Ex.C.8 sent by the 2nd Opposite party to the 1st Opposite party on 29.09.207, stating that Rs.239/- and Rs.1,080/- was deposited by the complainant on 29.09.2007. Then, the A.E.E. of the 1st Opposite party wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer that after obtaining record from the Municipality (2nd Opposite party) they will deduct the amount and the fresh bill will be issued. Now, the 1st Opposite party has produced Ex.R.5 the water bill details from 1997-98 to 11.08.2008 to February 2009. In this document, the Opposite party has given deduction of the Rs.239/- and Rs.1,080/- which was in dispute and he had also shown the interest for the balance as on the date and accordingly, 1st Opposite party has issued latest bill as per Ex.C.11. So considering these facts, now 1st Opposite party has issued water bill as per Ex.C.11 in March 2009 showing the correct due amount. Though the earlier bills Ex.C.10 and C.12 were in correct as there was no entry in the ledger handed over by the 2nd Opposite party Municipality. 9. It is undisputed as per the notification Ex.R.4 that the water board is empowered to impose interest at the rate of 1% for the arrears due. Therefore, 1st Opposite party is entitled to levy interest for the balance amount and if we peruse Ex.R.5 the imposition of interest on the amount due is properly calculated and it cannot be disputed at all. 10. Now, the complainant is bound to pay the amount demand in the latest bill Ex.C.11 for Rs.3,463/- as on 17.03.2009. 11. With regard to the deficiency in service, it can be safely said that the 2nd Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not deducting the amount deposited by the complainant as per Ex.C.2 & C.3. It is the duty of the 2nd Opposite party to make entry, soon after the deposit in the concerned register, but 2nd Opposite party has failed in its duties. If, the complainant had lost the receipts and when there is no entry in the register, it would have been monitory burden leading to disconnection of the water supply. Therefore, 2nd Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not properly maintaining the water bill accounts. 12. Now, though originally 1st Opposite party was acting upon the demand register handed over by the 2nd Opposite party, but when 2nd Opposite party sent letter about the deposit of the amounts mentioned in Ex.C.2 and C.3 it should have sought for details from the 2nd Opposite party. Though, the Sub-ordinate of 1st Opposite party has written letter to 2nd Opposite party that after obtaining the documents from the 2nd Opposite party they will rectify the bills, but there is no evidence whether any correspondence was made by 1st Opposite party Sub-ordinate to 2nd Opposite party. After production of the documents before the Forum 1st Opposite party has corrected the accounts and issued proper water bill as per Ex.C.11, but it should have taken this precaution earlier to filing the complaint and it made the complainant to approach the Forum. Therefore, 1st Opposite party has also committed deficiency in service to little extent. 13. The complainant sought for issue of proper water bill after correction and also sought for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony. But in the circumstances, there is no necessity to give direction because already 1st Opposite party has issued proper bill as per Ex.C.11 which cannot be quashed and complainant is bound to pay the said bill amount. 14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed, directing 2nd Opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- and 1st Opposite party to pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within 3 months. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 18th day of May 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
