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. 103/13
Tuesday the 24th day of February, 2015
Petitioner : Adv.G.R.Panicker
Mugal Palace Bldg No.3
Near Collectorate PO,
Kottayam-686 002
(By Adv. Robin Abraham)
Vs
Opposite parties : Kerala Water Authority
Rptd by the Managing Director,
Jala Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.
2) The Asst.Exe.Engineer,
Office of the Asst.Exe.Engineer,
Public Health Sub-Division
Kottayam-686 002.
(By Adv.K.M.George)
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant presented on 24-4-2013 is as follows:
The complainant is an Advocate practicing in Kottayam District Court and other courts in Kottayam. He had a water connection in his office as non-domestic consumer number KU/8/428 in Room No.3 of Mugal palace building number 403 C. The monthly rate was Rs.139 and later it was increased. He had remitted to pay the water charges in advance for six to twelve months. The last payment of the water charges was paid on 13-7-2011 upto July 2011. The amount last paid as recorded in the payment schedule was Rs.1483. The complainant was paying the amount of water charges as per the monthly rate. The 2nd opposite party has not been taking the meter reading after 7/2011 until February 2013. The opposite parties were not taking the meter reading of consumption of water for every month or half yearly. On 15/1/13 the opposite party issued a disconnection advice to the complainant demanding Rs.10433/- as arrears of water charges. The complainant issued a letter to the opposite parties on 10-1-2013 in reply to the above advice, to the 2nd opposite party requesting him to take the meter reading and charge the complainant according to the meter reading. Accordingly in February the opposite parties agent came to the complainant and took the meter reading. The monthly rate of water charges was fixed as Rs.300/- per month. But the opposite party did not issue the complainant a bill showing the meter reading as taken in February 2013. The 2nd opposite party issued a letter to the complainant on 20-3-1013 demanding an amount of Rs.11881/-. There is no jurisdiction for demanding such a huge amount without actually taking the reading for 20 months. The amount demanded was not correct. The 2nd opposite party stated that the monthly rate of water charges was Rs.300/-. The defaulted period is only 19 months ie from 8/2011 to 2/2013. As per the assessment of the 2nd opposite party the amount should be Rs.5700/- only. But the amount charges is Rs.11881/- which is illegal and against the natural rules of conduct. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The monthly water charge of the complainant is varying according to the consumption of water and meter reading. Even after sending the repeated demand notices the petitioner was reluctant to remit the arrears of water charges. He paid the water charges only up to the period of 7/2011. The water charge arrear of the petitioner is Rs.12419/- as on 31-3-2013. The water meter of the consumer is kept in the room of the petitioner and the meter reader is not aboe to take the meter reading regularly. The petitioner may fix the water meter in an accessible place to facilitate taking of meter readings regularly. In spite of repeated demands the petitioner was not ready to remit the arrears. Then he was served a demand and disconnection notice. The demanded amount was generated from the meter readings taken on different periods. The amount includes the monthly water charges (it may vary according to the meter readings) and interest cumulated from arrears. The amount demanded is correct. The monthly charge of the complainant is not fixed at Rs.300/-. Hence the petitioner is legally bound to pay the arrears of water charges as per the demand notice. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts. A1 to A9. 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 evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party issued additional bill without taking proper meter readings. According to him the complainant had remitted the water charges as per the PIC for the period from 6 months to one year in advance. Hence the complainant is not liable to remit the demanded bill amount. The opposite party has taken a contention that the demanded amount is correct and proper as per the meter readings. According to them the complaint is liable to remit the bill issued by the opposite parties. From the available documents and evidences it can be seen that the complainant has remitted the water charges as per PIC in lumps in advance for 6 months or one year. Admittedly the complainant is due to remit . Some amount as per PIC. Moreover there was no evidence adduced by the opposite parties to show that the meter readings of the complainant was taken properly and on the basis of the readings the opposite parties issued the bill. Hence we are of the opinion that the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on the part of them without taking proper meter readings and issued the bills. So we have no reasons to dis-believe the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows;
i)We set aside the bills issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
ii) The complainant shall remit the water charges as per PIC if not paid already.
iii) We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for inconveniences and pay Rs.1500/- as costs of these proceedings.
The Order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The costs and compensation can be adjusted in the future bills.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 24th day of February 2015.
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 petitioner
Ext.A1-Letter No.HC/Rev)11-12 dtd 14/3/13 issued by Asst.Exe.Engineer,KWA
Ext.A2-Disconnection Advice dtd 5/1/13
Ext.A3-Copy of Consumers meter card
Ext.A4-Copy of provisional invoice card
Ext.A5-Demand & Disconnection notice dtd 26-9-13
Ext.A6-Demand & Disconnection notice dtd 22/11/13
Ext.A7-Demand & Disconnection notice dtd 21/1/14
Ext.A8-Demand & Disconnection notice dtd 14-3/14
Ext.A9-Demand & Disconnection notice dtd 20/5/14
Documents of opposite party
Ext.B1-Copy of consumer personal ledger(consumer details)
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
