IN THECONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KOTTAYAM
Present
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu.P.Gopalan, Member
CC No. 377/12
Saturday the 29th day of November, 2014
Petitioner : John Joseph,
Mannupparambil,
Kottayam
Consumer No.K19/1/D
(Adv. Sojan Paviyanose)
Vs
Opposite parties : The Kerala State Water Authority,
Jalabhavan, Thiruvananthapuram
Rptd by its Managing Director.
2) The Asst.Exe.Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority, Kottayam.
(Adv. K.M. George)
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant presented on 21/12/2012 is as follows:
He had a water connection with consumer No.K 19/1/D from the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party had issued a bill for Rs.18,412/- dtd 1-12-1012. The complainant had not defaulted the payment of water charges till today. The bill for Rs.18,412/- which was issued by the opposite parties without any justification. There was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The bill was not sustainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not liable to pay the demanded amount of the opposite parties. So the Forum may be set aside the bill dtd 1-12-2012. Hence this complaint.
The notice was served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The complainant is reluctant to pay water charges properly. Water bill of Rs.18412/- was served to the petitioner and it was truly based on the meter reading taken from the water connection of the petitioner. He was remitting water charges @ Rs.44/- per month as per the provisional invoice card. It was provisional water charge and an additional bill was generated from the meter reading of 2260- KL dated on 16-10-2012. The bill of Rs.18412/- is based on the consumption of water by the petitioner and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The average monthly consumption of the petitioner was 10.3 KL per month. As per the reading on 16-10-12(2260-KL) the average monthly consumption of the petitioner has been enhanced to 50.5 KL per month and monthly water charge is Rs. 445/- with effect from previous reading. Thus it is the reason to arrive at an additional bill amount of Rs.18482/- and the petitioner is legally bound to pay the amount. The petitioner was remitting the water charge @ Rs.44/- per month it was provisional water charges and subject to adjustment after taking the meter reading. Even though the complainant had paid the provisional water charges in advance, he is bound to pay the additional charges after taking meter reading. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts. A1 to A5. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and one document which is marked as Ext.B1.
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidence. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties had issued additional bill for Rs.18,412/- without any basis. According to him the opposite parties had not take proper meter readings from the water meter of the complainant. The opposite parties made a contention that the additional bill issued to the complainant was proper and as per the law. According to the opposite parties the complainant was liable to remit the bill dtd 1-12-2012. From the available documents and evidences it can be seen that the opposite parties are not taken proper meter readings from the water meter of the complainant. There was no evidence adduced by the opposite parties to show that the complainant is consumed this much of water and he is liable to remit the bill dtd 1-12-2012. We can not say that the complainant is liable to remit the bill amount without proper meter readings. Moreover the opposite parties has not a case that the complainant was a defaulter of remitting water charges as per P.I.C. The opposite parties can issue fresh bill to the petitioner on the basis of proper meter readings. So we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows.
We setaside (A1) the additional bill dtd 1-12-2012 for Rs.18,412/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Both parties will suffer their respective costs.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of November 2014.
Hon’ble Mr K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu.P.Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of complainant
Ext.A1-Consumer Bill No.KWA/K19/Dec/2012/-18 dtd 01-12-2012
Ext.A2-copy of provisional invoice card
Ext.A3-series of receipts (2 Nos)
Ext.A4-Demand &Disconnection Notice No.6814140 dtd 11-Dec-13
Ext.A5- Demand &Disconnection Notice No.8008862 dtd 21-Apr.14
Documents of opposite parties
Ext.B1-Copy of consumer ledger
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
