Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):
The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.
- The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is
customers of opposite parties vide consumer number P.P.83 of 2nd opposite party. It is contended that there was no dues for him up to December 2016. When the complainant approached 2nd opposite party for remitting the bill amount of 2017 the section Clark asked him to remit Rs. 9421/- as the bill amount for 2015-2016. It is contended that the demand of 2nd opposite party for remitting the said amount is against the actual consumption of water and also contended that he has so many alternative water availability by rain water tank, well etc. etc. apart from the water connection. The complainant filed a complaint on 21/03/2017 before the 2nd opposite party but 2nd opposite party did not take any action on it. On 22/03/2017 2nd opposite party issued a bill for an amount of Rs.9421/- to the complainant. The complainant filed another complaint on 30/03/2017 before the 2nd opposite party but it was also invain. It is contended that the overbilling of the opposite parties without considering the actual consumption of water, amounts to deficiency in services against the opposite parties. Hence this case, for cancelling the bill amount Rs.9421/- compensation cost etc. etc.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for their appearance. Notices were served to 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The 1st opposite party did not appear before this Forum hence 1st opposite party was declared ex-party. The 2nd opposite party entered appearance and filed their version as follows. According to the 2nd opposite party the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer number PZP/83 dated 13/12/1993. The complainant paid an advance amount for the cost of 10,000/- litters of water up to 12/2016. It is stated that the 2nd opposite party issued a bill for an amount of Rs. 9364/- as additional bill with regard to the consumption of water for the period of 03/2015 to 03/2017. It is further contended that the complainant is collecting KWA water in his rain water tank. According to this opposite party the complainant is consuming an average of 27 k.l. of water from 04/2017 to 07/2017 as per the meter reading vide No.10546 on 17/08/2017. On the basis of this average reading the complainant has to pay Rs.245/-per month. It is further contended that the bill issued to the complainant is in accordance with the meter reading hence he is liable to pay the bill amount to the opposite parties. The opposite parties attached the details of complainants meter reading from 03/2015 to 03/2017 for an amount of Rs.9364/- along with the version.
4. We peruse the complaint, version and record before us and framed the following issues for consideration:
1. Whether this case is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties are committed any deficiency
in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding relief and costs?
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant is examined as PW1 and through him marked Ext. A1 to Ext. A5. Ext A1 is the provisional Invoice Card. Ext.A2 is the Complaints to 2nd opposite party dated 30/03/2017. Ext.A3 is the Complaints to 2nd opposite party dated 30/03/2017. Ext. A4 is the Complaints to 2nd opposite party dated 30/03/2017. Ext. A5 is the Complaints to 2nd opposite party dated 20/05/2017. Though PW1 deposed in chief examination the opposite party did not cross examine him. Even though 2nd opposite party filed version he did not cross examine PW1 or adduced any evidence for 2nd opposite parties. After the closure of evidence we heard the complainant.
6. Point No 1:- The Opposite party has filed a version to the effect that this case is not maintainable either in law or on facts. When we evaluate the evidence of this case it can be inferred that the contesting 2nd opposite party miserably failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their contention. We can see that even in the version filed by 2nd opposite party it is admitted that the complainant is a customer of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are collecting water charges from the complainant as the consideration of the supply of water to the complainant. Therefore we can safely come to a conclusion that the complainant is a consumer and opposite parties are service providers of the complainant. Therefore point No. 1 found in favour of the complainant.
7. Point No 2 & 3:- For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider the Point No.2 and 3 together. When we evaluate the evidence adduced by the complainant PW1 by way of chief examination we can see that it is more or less as per the tune of his complainant. The PW1 deposed that he is a consumer of opposite parties and they asked him to remit Rs.9421/- as arrear to 2nd opposite party. It is deposed that PW1 did not use such a quantity of water to pay the said amount. The PW1 specifically deposed that he remitted the whole water charge up to 12/2016. In chief examination he deposed ‘2016 ഡിസംബർ വരെ വെള്ളക്കരം കുടിശ്ശികകൂടാതെ അടച്ചിട്ടുള്ളതും എനിക്ക് പരാതി അതിൽ ഇല്ലാത്തതുമാണ്. എൻറെ water connection ടി തുക അടച്ചില്ലെങ്കിൽ വിഛേദിക്കും എന്ന് കാണിച്ച് നോട്ടീസ് അയച്ചിട്ടുള്ളതുമാണ്. എതൃകക്ഷിയുടെ ഭാഗത്തുനിന്നും സേവന വീഴ്ച്ച ഉണ്ടായിട്ടില്ല എനിക്ക് വേണ്ടത് പണം കുറച്ചു കിട്ടുക എന്നുള്ളതു മാത്രമാണ് അത്തരത്തിൽ ഒരു നടപടി ഉണ്ടാകണമെന്ന് അപേക്ഷിക്കുന്നു.’ When we examine the Ext.A1 provisional Invoice Card the last entry shown in Ext.A1 is 16/08/2016. The complainant has not seen challenged the credibility of Ext.A1 payment schedule. Though the 2nd opposite party filled a version stating that the complainant is consuming average 27KL of water from 04/2017 to 07/2017 they failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their contention. If 2nd opposite party has any bonafide with regard to the contention they can very well participate in the trial and prove their contention. At this juncture we are not in a position to consider the contention put forward by 2nd opposite party through their version. Ext.A2 series to Ext.A5 series are four complaints to 2nd opposite party, Assistant Executive Engineer KWA, Ranni, Executive Engineer KWA, Pathanamthitta, Chief Engineer KWA Thiruvanathapuram, respectively. The opposite parties have no case to see that they have taken any steps to redress the grievances of the complaint. It is to be noted that as the service provider of the complainant the opposite parties are duty bond to respond with the complaint and redress the grievances of the complainant, if any. The non-response from the opposite parties is also amounts to latches on their part and we can attribute deficiency in service against them.
8. Though the 2nd opposite parties filed a version as discussed above the 2nd opposite party purposefully evaded from the process of this case and no steps has been taken to safe guard the interest of K.W.A. Anyhow either the complainant or the opposite party did not adduce any convincing evidence with regard to the bill amount Rs.9364/-. It is true that 2nd opposite party filed a statement to this effect along with their version. The said statement containing the version shall not be considered as evidence in favour of opposite parties in this case. At this circumstance the case of the complainant can be seen as more probable than the contention raised by 2nd opposite party through their version. It is also to see that evidence adduced by the complainant by way of chief examination was also not challenged by the opposite parties. Considering the nature and circumstance of the case the complaint has not adduced any evidence to allow compensation as prayed. Therefore we find that the complaint is allowable and also find that 2nd opposite party is the Assistant Engineer KWA Ranni and 1st opposite party is the subordinate officer of 2nd opposite party. Hence 1st opposite party & 2nd opposite party are severely and jointly liable to the complainant. Therefore point No2 & 3 found accordingly.
9. In the result we pass the following orders.
- The 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party are hereby directed to cancel the bill amount Rs. 9364/-(Rupees Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty four only) which is misheard in page No. 2 of 2nd opposite party’s version.
- A cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) is also allow to the complainant with 10% interest from the date to receipt of this order onwards from 2nd opposite parties.
- No order for compensation.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2017.
(Sd/-)
P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,
(President)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Abdul Kareem,
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Provisional Invoice Card.
A2 : Complaints to 2nd opposite party dated 30/03/2017.
A3 : Complaints to 2nd opposite party dated 30/03/2017.
A4 : Complaints to 2nd opposite party dated 30/03/2017.
A5 : Complaints to 2nd opposite party dated 20/05/2017.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to: - (1) Abdul Kareem, Viruthikkattil, Pezhumpara.P.O,
Vadasserikkara.
(2) The Assitant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority,
Public Health Section, Vadasserikkara.
(3) The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Public Health Section, Ranni.
(4) The Stock File.
