IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.137/06 Between: Ayyappan. R., S/o. Ramaswamy, Ayyappa Sadanam, Maroor, Pathanamthitta. ..... Complainant. And: - Kerala Water Authority,
Rep. by its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram. - The Asst. Exe. Engineer,
P.H. Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. G. Ajith kumar) ..... Opposite parties. O R D E RSri. N. Premkumar (Member): Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: The complainant’s water connection is in the name of his father, (Con.No.B17/D/PTA). Since from the death of his father, complainant is using the connection. Complainant has been paying the water charges regularly. While so, on 4.07.2006, the complainant received a notice from the opposite parties demanding Rs.20,914/- being the water charges due from 2004 September to 2006 June. According to the complainant, he has not consumed water for such a large amount. 3. Prior to the issuance of the above said bill, 2nd opposite party issued a notice-dated 3.06.2006 to the father of the complainant about the non-working of meter. Before the said letter complainant did not know about the non-working of the meter. 4. After the issuance of bill dated 4.7.2006 opposite parties disconnected the complainant’s water connection for the non-payment of the said bill. This caused too much mental agony to the complainant. The bill for Rs.20,914/- is illegal and is liable to be quashed. Hence this complaint for quashing the said bill, for the restoration of his of water connection, and for allowing instalments for the payment of actual dues along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of this proceedings. 5. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that the complainant is not a consumer as the water connection is in the name of one Ramaswamy Achary. The complainant has remitted only the minimum water charges up to 9/05. But the consumption of the consumer was much higher than the minimum slab. Therefore an additional bill for Rs.20,698/- was issued for the excess quantity of water consumed up to 12/05. 6. According to opposite parties, water connection was given to the complainant on 29.4.1992 and the periodical meter reading was taken from time to time. On 6.03.2004, meter reader found that the meter is not working and instructed to replace the faulty meter within a period of 30 days. But the complainant has not complied this till 29.09.2004. On 29.9.2004, the complainant replaced the faulty meter with a new meter. On 11.4.2005, the meter reading of the complainant was 1334 KL. On 4.6.2005, the reading was 1745 KL, on 31.8.2005 reading was 2395 KL and on 5.11.2005 it was 3186 KL and after that the meter again became faulty. On 3.06.2006 a notice was served to the complainant for replacing the faulty meter. The receipt of the notice was acknowledged by a family member of the consumer. 7. The complainant has a total arrear of Rs.20,914/-. He is liable to remit the amount. But he fails to remit the dues and to replace the faulty meter even after notices. This compelled the opposite party to disconnect the water connection and to initiate R.R proceeding against complainant. On inspection of the connection it is found that a huge GL tank was kept at the premises and the complainant had been collecting water in the tank. The complainant’s residence is situated near the main supply over head tank with capacity of 26.5 lakhs litres. Complainant has not challenged the accuracy of the water meter. Water charge bill was prepared on the basis of meter reading. 8. Complainant has not filed complaint regarding the arrears before the appellate authority, the Executive Engineer. The Hon’ble High Court in its judgments WP(C)No.35922/03 dated 14.11.03 and in WP(C)No.37311/03 and 36299/03 dated 2.12.03 upheld the said provision. In this case complainant has miserably failed to appeal before the appellate authority. Therefore this complaint is not maintainable and no deficiency from their part. Hence opposite party canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. 9. From the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration. (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Relief and Cost? 10. Evidence of the complainant consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. From opposite parties side, 2nd opposite party has filed proof affidavit and he was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 and B2(a). After closure of evidence, both parties were heard. 11. Point Nos.1 to 3:- In order to prove complainant’s case, he filed a proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents are marked as Ext.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the notice dated 3.06.2006 issued by the opposite parties intimating the non-working of the meter. Ext.A2 is the notice dated 4.07.2006 demanding Rs.20,914/- as water charges arrears issued by the opposite parties. 12. In order to prove the opposite parties contention, 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 to B2(a). Ext.B1 is the attested copy of page No.66 of the Meter Reading Book. Ext.B2 is the attested copy of Consumer Personal Ledger Page No.169. Ext.B2(a) is the attested copy of Consumer Personal Ledger Page No.167. 13. On going through the material on record, it is seen that Ext.A2 bill period is from 29.9.04 to 6/06. According to the complainant, Ext.A2 bill amount is exorbitant and he had not actually consumed water to that extent and hence it is not proper. He has been paying Rs.31/- as per slab system and has no knowledge about the fault of the meter till the receipt of Ext.A1. Moreover he was always willing and ready to remit any arrears based on actual consumption and proper assessment. 14. According to opposite parties, complainant’s meter was faulty on 6.03.2004 and he had replaced a new meter only on 29.9.04. Again the said meter become faulty on 3.06.06 but it was not replaced by a new meter. Opposite parties contention is that complainant’s consumption was higher the minimum slab and Ext.A2 bill is for the excess consumption of the complainant and it was prepared on the basis of the actual reading recorded in the registers and it is an additional bill. 15. On a perusal of Ext.A2, it is seen that the bill is for the period from 9/04 to 6/06 but it does not discloses the details of their calculation or their assessment. But as per Exts. B1 and B2(a) no reading seen for 9/04. Moreover, the entries seen in Exts.B1, B2 and B2(a) does not tally each other. So the calculation made in Ext.B2(a) is doubtful. In the circumstances, we are of the view that Ext.A2 bill is not in order and is liable to be set aside. However, the consumer is liable to pay the arrears based on actual and reasonable calculations. In the circumstances, we find that this complaint is maintainable and allowable in part. 16. In the result, this complaint is allowed in part as follows: (1) Ext.A2 bill is hereby set aside. (2) The opposite parties are directed to issue a fresh detailed bill in the place of Ext.A2 based on the actual consumption during the period when the meter was working properly and on the basis of average consumption during the faulty period, considering the actual consumption immediately before the meter become faulty and immediately after the installation of the new meter. (3) The complainant is at liberty to remit the new bill amount which is to be issued by the opposite parties by 6 monthly instalments, if he desires so, without interest. (4) The opposite parties are also directed to adjust the amounts already remitted by the complainant. In the light of the order in I.A.137/06, the question of re-connection does not arise. Considering the nature and circumstance, no compensation or cost is awarded. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 2nd day of December, 2009. (Sd/-) N. Premkumar, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Ayyappan. R Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Notice dated 3.6.2006 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. A2 : Demand notice dated 4.7.2006 for Rs.20,914/- issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : V. Vasanthakumari Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Attested photocopy of page No.66 of Meter Reading Book. B2 : Attested photocopy of Consumer Personal Ledger Page No.169. B2(a) : Attested photocopy of Consumer Personal Ledger Page No.167. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Ayyappan. R., Ayyappa Sadanam, Maroor, Pathanamthitta. (2) Secretary, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. (3) The Asst. Exe. Engineer, P.H. Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority, Pathanamthitta. (4) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
