Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/415

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

KALLUPARAMBAN ABOOBACKER - Opp.Party(s)

ISSAC SAMUEL

31 Aug 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.415/2014

JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2016

 (Against the order in CC No.265/12 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram, dtd: 28/03/14)

PRESENT

SMT. A. RADHA                            : MEMBER

 

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

          Assistant Executive Engineer,

          Kerala Water Authority,

          Parappanangadi,

          Malappuram.

 

          (By Adv: Sri. Issac Samuel)

 

                                                                   Vs.

 

RESPONDENT

 

          Kalluparamban Aboobacker,

          S/o. Kunhipocker Haji,

Kalluparamban House,

          Sanmanas Road, Chemmad,

          Tirurangadi, Malappuram – 676306.

 

          (By Adv: Sri. Narayan. R)

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

SMT. A. RADHA          : MEMBER

          Appellant is the opposite party who preferred this appeal against the order in CC 265/2012 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram, and the respondent is the complainant.

          2.      It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party issued a bill for Rs.1,865/- dated 21/05/2010 towards under charge for over consumption of water for the year 2009.  The complainant is having water connection with consumer no.218 from 1989 onwards and was remitting the water bill between Rs.30/- to Rs.40/-.  On 05/01/2012 the opposite party again issued an extra bill for an amount of Rs.13,465/- for the period from May, 2010 to October 2011 that is for a period of 18 months.  On request of the complainant the meter was inspected and it is found that the meter is not faulty.  The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite parties and officials calculated the bill without any bonafides.  This was challenged by the complainant and filed the complaint before the forum below to cancel the bill and also to pay Rs.70,000/- towards compensation. 

          3.      It is contended in the version filed by the opposite party that the complainant is a consumer and is having a domestic connection.  Being a domestic connection the meter reading is taken in every six months.  It is also contended that the consumers are remitting the monthly charges as per the invoice card issued to them.  As and when there is extra use of consumption of water the consumers are issued with additional bill during the six months period.  It is stated in the version that the complainant was using water at 62KL and had paid Rs.232/-, Rs.294/-, Rs.334/- respectively during the year 2006.  It is also denied that the consumption of water by the complainant was at the rate of Rs.30/-to Rs.40/-.  The complainant had not remitted any amount after 21/05/2010.  It is also admitted that the meter was working properly.  The complainant was issued with a notice dated 31/01/2012, 28/05/2012, 01/07/2012 and 07/12/2012.  The premise card was issued to complainant at the time of installation of water connection and it is the primary duty of the consumer to keep the card.  It is the first time that the complainant raised the question of non – issuance of premise card on filing this complaint.    Due to non-remittance of arrears of water bill the opposite party is entitled to proceed for revenue recovery.  The bill was issued as per law and the complainant is liable to pay the amount.

          4.      To substantiate the case both parties filed affidavit and OPW1 was examined on the part of opposite parties.  The documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A4 and Exts.B1 to B7 series on the part of complainant and opposite parties respectively.

          5.      We have heard both the counsels in detail and had gone through the documents. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer having domestic connection with consumer no.218.  The complainant was issued with a bill for Rs.13,465/- for the period from 5/2010 to October 2011.  There is no case for both parties that the meter is faulty.  The respondent has no case that he has remitted the water charges from May, 2010 onwards.  On going through the documents we find that the register was not kept with proper details which amounts to a fabricated document.  This was clearly brought down while cross examining the opposite party.  As per the meter reading register there is no mention in the register with regard to the person who had recorded the meter reading or his name or signature. It is also relevant to point out that the notice issued dated 31/01/2012, 25/08/2012 and 01/07/2012 were not proved properly by the appellant.  It is mandatory to send notice to consumers who are not paying water bills within the time.  No convincing evidence was given that the meter reader had taken the reading in every six months.  It is also to be pointed out that even after issuance of bill the opposite party had not disconnected the water connection.  Matter being so, it is highly necessary to take the meter reading properly and to take the average water consumption.  The appellant is directed to issue new bill after taking average consumption of water in the respondent’s meter.  Hence we are of the considered view that the disputed bill is to be cancelled and directed to issue fresh bill taking average consumption of the water by the complainant.

          In the result, appeal is dismissed with direction to issue fresh bill.

 

1. RADHA          : MEMBER

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

nb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACADU,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.415/2014

JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2016

 

 

nb