IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of May, 2015
Filed on 09.09.2013
Present
1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.274/2013
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt. Anu Susan Thomas 1. Kerala Water Authority
Mullasseril House Represented by its Managing
Pandanadu P.O. Director & others, 3, Jalabhavan
Pandanadu Village Vazhuthakkadu, Thiruvananthapuram
Represented by her power of attorney
Holder, A.N. Kurian 2. The Executive Engineer
Ambrayil House, Thalavady P.O. Kerala Water Authority
Thalavady Village, Alappuzha Dt. Alappuzha
(By Adv. Oommen M. Mathew)
3. The Asst. Executive Engineer
KSP Sub Division, Kerala Water
Authority, Mavelikara
(By Adv. Joseph Mathew)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant’s father preferred an application for water connection in the year 1993 and deposited necessary amount before the Kerala Water Authority. Her father died in the year 1998. But the opposite party had not provided water connection till date. A notice dated 22.5.2013 had been issued from the first opposite party through the third opposite party to her deceased father demanding to pay an amount of Rs.10,836/-. Opposite party had committed deficiency in service by demanding money for a service which had not been provided by it. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
Domestic water connection with Consumer No.PDD-26 was given to the building owned by M.A.Achankunju on 25.10.1993. Neither expiry of the owner nor change of ownership of the building has been reported to the opposite party. After effecting water connection, the consumer has remitted water charge up to September, 1994. The consumer is liable to remit the PIC amount/ month in time even if the intimation for the same has not been received from the opposite party. The demand notice is legal and as per the rules and regulations in force. No deficiency of service has been committed by the opposite party.
3. The power of attorney holder was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. Expert commissioner was examined as CW1. The commission report is marked as Ext.C1. The Asst. Engineer of the opposite party was examined as RW1. The document produced marked as Ext.B1 subject to objection. The overseer of opposite party was examined as RW2.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. According to the complainant, her father had preferred an application for water connection in the year 1993 and deposited necessary amount before the opposite party, but the opposite party had not provided water connection till date. Without giving water connection, the opposite party had issued a notice dated 22.5.2013 demanding to pay an amount of Rs.10,836/-. The said notice is produced and marked as Ext.A1. According to the opposite party, the father of the complainant had applied for the domestic water connection after complying all the procedure and water connection was effected to the premises on 25.10.1999. The opposite party also stated that after effecting water connection, the consumer has remitted water charges up to September, 1994. In order to substantiate that contention the opposite party produced a photo copy of the provisional invoice card attested by the advocate as Ext.B1 and complainant opposed to mark that document. In the version and proof affidavit, the details of water charge remitted is stated as follows:-
On 25.10.1993 Rs.45/- for the period October 1993 – December 1993
On 21.02.2004 Rs.50/- for the period January 1994 – March 1994
On 11.10.1994 Rs.150/- for the period April 1994 – September 1994
Thereafter while cross examining the RW1 she corrected the date 21.2.2004 as 21.2.1994. So according to the opposite party the monthly consumption is fixed as the minimum water charge @ Rs.15/-. But opposite party has not produced any documents to prove the minimum charge fixed by them during 1993-94. If it is fixed as @ Rs.15/- on verifying the statement of remittance, we came see that the third remittance has been effected after 8 months. But opposite party has accepted the due amount without any objection. They have no complaints with regard to that payment. Moreover it is pertinent to note that the opposite party has not taken any steps, being water charge from the consumer from 1994 onwards.
As per Regulation 12(a) of Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulation 1991, “Every premises to which water is supplied, shall be provided with a separate house connection, separate stop cock and separate meter attached to the connection pipe.”
As per Regulation 13(a), “The water consumed at the premises of a consumer shall be assessed at such intervals as decided by the Executive Engineer from time to time, based on meter readings taken from the meter fixed to the house connection at the premises of the consumer.”
As per Regulation 13( c), “The authority may also introduce a slab system for collection of water charges. The slab so fixed shall be revised if the consumption of water at the premises of the consumer is found to have increased or decreased as the case may be, based on observations of the meter readings taken in the subsequent six months to the last period. The initial average rate for the first six months shall be fixed on the average consumption or metered average consumption of any six months preceding the date of coming into force of the slab system.”
6. In this case there is no document produced by the opposite party to prove that they have acted as per the procedure. It is an admitted fact that the father of the complainant had preferred an application for water connection in the year 1993 and deposited necessary amount before the opposite party. As per Regulation No.6 of the Kerala Water Authority Regulation on receipt of such amount the Asst. Executive Engineer shall accord sanction for the house connection and arrange to provide the connection as early as possible. But opposite party failed to produce any documents to prove that the Asst. Executive Engineer accord sanction for the said house connection and also made arrangement to provide the connection. Moreover an advocate commission was appointed for the local inspection and the advocate commission report is marked as Ext.C1. In the report the Advocate commissioner specifically ascertained that there is no water connection from the pipe line of Kerala Water Authority to the premises or the building of the complainant. From the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that there is no water connection provided to the consumer by the opposite party. Hence the opposite party is stopped from claiming any amount from the complainant. Hence the impugned bill dated 22.5.2013 is quashed.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The notice dated 22.5.2013 demanding to pay the amount of Rs.10,836/- is quashed. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards costs of this proceedings. Since the primary relief is granted no further amount is granted towards compensation. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the day 30th day of May, 2015.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - A.N. Kurian (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Notice dated 10,836/-
Ext.A2 - Copy of the power of attorney
Ext.A3 - Copy of the letter dated 30.6.2013
Ext.A4 - Postal receipt
Ext.A5 - Acknowledgement card
CW1 - P.S. Anaghan (Court Witness)
Ext.C1 - Commission report
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - B.V. Sreelatha (Witness)
RW2 - Raghukumar.K. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the Provisional Invoice Card
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-pg/-
