Present: 1. Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President.
2. Smt. Sheena.V.V, Member.
3. Sri.M.P.Chandrakumar, Member
26th day of February 2014
C.C 222/08 filed on 27-3-08
Complainant: Elyakutty, Thekkumpuram (H), Puthukkad, Thrissur
(By Adv. Jos Davis, Thrissur)
Respondents: 1. Kerala Water Authority, rept. by Managing Director,
Jalabhavan, Trivandrum
2. Asst. Exicutive Engineer, Public Health Sub Division,
Kerala Water authority, Irinjalakuda.
(By Advt. Bivin Paul, Thrissur)
O R D E R
By Sri. M.P.Chandrakumar, Member
The case of the complaint is that the complainant is a customer of the respondent, with a domestic consumer connection no.111. Since the existing water meter was not functioning, a new meter was installed during 11/98, after which a notice was received from K W A, stating that the monthly water charge has been revised to Rs.3020/-. Being aggrieved, the complainant sent a letter to the respondent on 12/2/ 99, stating that she has not used 300 units of water monthly and that the newly installed meter was not functioning properly and hence be replaced. However, the meter was replaced only on 15/2/03. But, on 5/4/05, the water connection was disconnected and on 9/3/08,a notice was served, informing that the arrears of water charge as on 5/4/05comes to Rs.1,48,513/- and that if the amount is not remitted by 22/3/08, Revenue Recovery steps will be initiated to recover the amount. The complaint is filed to cancel the Revenue Recovery notice dated 9/3/2008, since the bill has been prepared without proper meter reading, illegal and also time barred.
2. The counter averments of the 2nd respondent is that the complainant is not a domestic consumer but a commercial consumer, with consumer No 111/ND. She is conducting a hotel, named “Hotel Guru” and the water, as per the connection was used for the hotel. Since the water meter was not working from 4/01, notice had been issued to her, several times, to replace the default meter. However the meter was replaced only on 15/2/03. The respondent has further represented that since 4/99, after the enhancement of water charges, she has not remitted any amount, even though she had been directed several times and hence the connection was disconnected on 5/4/05. Afterwards, even though the complainant was directed to remit the arrears of water charges, several times. She neither remitted the amount nor filed any complaints, regarding the bill amount and hence the Revenue Recovery notice. The respondent has further represented that Consumer Forum has no legal right to interfere as regards Revenue Recovery matters. More over, as the complaintee is bound to remit the charges of water used, she may be directed to remit the dues to KWA and thereby to dismiss the complaint with cost.
3. The points for consideration are
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service?
2. Whether the bill is time barred?
3. If so, relief and costs.
4. The complaint petition is filed to cancel Exbt.P1. Hence, was there any deficiency of service, connected with the issue of Exbt.P1 notice, was looked into. In this connection, we have gone in depth, through the complaint petition, the Exhibits PI- P2 and R1 and could find deficiency of service, as follows.
1. Exbt.P1-R.R notice no.123 dated 9-3-08, mentions that the complainant has to payRs1,48,513 to KWA, being the arrears of water charges during the period of 5- 4 -05, However as per pg.5 of R1 being the copy of Consumer personal ledger, there is only an arrears of Rs.1,33,467/- up to 2/ 2010, which includes Rs56652 as interest. How, the arrears up to 2/10, is lesser than the arrears up to 5- 4 -05 is something suspicious and leads to the conclusion that the bill prepared wrongly, without proper meter reading.
2. The meter reading of only certain months, viz 15/11/98 . 9/12/98. 23/1/99, 6/99, 11/99,3/11/2000, 22/1/2001 and 9/2/2005,has been recorded in the consumer personal ledger page 1 where as, in the abstract on page. 5 of the ledger, the meter reading of more or less entirely different months/dates has been recorded, which leads to the conclusion that either there was no proper meter reading or the records are not properly maintained.
3. Neither in Exbt P1, nor in R1 is recorded the details of how the amount of Rs.1,48,513/- has been arrived at.
4. As per the Exhibits P2, P4, P5, P6, P9 etc , fine has been worked out at
Rs 10/month of delay, where as, in Exbt R1, it is seen worked out at 2% interest.
5. The amount due, is also seen worked out at different rates in different notices. The rate for 1/99 is worked out at Rs.2697/- in Exbt. P4, Rs. 3020/- in Exbt. P9, Rs. 1955/- in Exbt.P5, etc. Similar differences in rate also exists in respect of other months also, which leads to the conclusion that the bill is prepared wrongly and that there is great deficiency of service.
5. The bill also suffers from the limitation of time bar, along with deficiency of service. It is seen that, even though the petitioner has not remitted the water charges from April 99, sanction has been accorded by the respondents to replace meter only on 15/2/03 and only on 5/4/05, the connection was disconnected and only on 9/3/ 08, Revenue Recovery notice was served. There is no proper explanations from the respondents, as to why the disconnection was effected only on 5/4/05, even though disconnection notice was served on 5/4/05, for a consumer, who not paid water charges from April 99.
6. All the above things make the genuineness of Exbt.P1 doubtful. Even though the consumer is liable to pay the water charges for the water used by him, we feel that the consumer is not liable to pay this bill amount, as primafacia, the amount is doubtful.
7. In the result, the complaint is allowed and Exhibit P1 notice stands cancelled.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 26th day of February 2014. Sd/-
M.P. Chandrakumar., Member.
Sd/-
Padmini Sudheesh, President.
Sd/-
Sheena.V.V, Member
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits:
Ext. P1- Notice
Ext. P2 - Bill
Ext. P3 – Notice
Ext. P4- Bill
Ext. P5 – Bill
Ext P6- Letter no.M1. 1925/98
Ext. P7- Letter dated 12/7/99
Ext. P8 – letter dated 28/10/98
Ext. P9 – bill
Ext. P10 – receipt
Ext P11- receipt
Complainant’s Witness:
PW1- Elyakutty
Respondents’ Exhibit:
R1- copy of ledger sheet
Id/-
Member
