DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD<br /> <br /> Dated this the 16th day of July 2007.<br /> <br /> Present : Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, Member<br /> Smt.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> <br /> <br /> C.C.No.98/2006,<br /> <br /> <br /> M.P. Kunchunni<br /> 60 years<br /> Moochikaparambil<br /> Mangalam. <br /> Ottappalam - Complainant<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> 1. Kerala Water Authority<br /> P H Sub Division <br /> Ottappalam.<br /> <br /> 2. Kerala Water Authority<br /> Divisional Office<br /> Kalmandapam<br /> Palakkad. - Opposite party <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Prof. O. Unnikrishnan, Member<br /> <br /> <br /> The complainant in his complaint states that he is having a domestic water connection vide consumer No. L-226 from Kerala Water Authority and as per the water connection he was paying a monthly slab for an amount of Rs.73/-<br /> <br /> The complainant in his allegation states that on 04.05.06 a demand <br /> - 2 -<br /> <br /> notice dated 04.05.06 & bill No.15085 were received from the opposite party stating that for the period from 4/03 to 2/06 he has to pay an amount of Rs.5355/- as additional charges and he was shocked to receive the notice. The complainant filed and application asking the opposite party to recheck the water meter and also paid slab amount of Rs.73/- for the period from February 2006 to May 2006. As per the request the opposite party rechecked the meter and found that the meter is at fault and the reading was showing 1971 and the monthly consumption comes to Rs.56/-, the complainant says that he has to pay an amount of Rs.7,915/-. The complainant states that he had paid the slab for the relevant period @ Rs.73/- for 35 months for an amount of Rs.2555/-. The opposite party has directed him to pay the balance amount of Rs.5355/-.<br /> <br /> The complainant further submits that on 04.03.03 the opposite party has issued a notice stating the water meter was not functioning and hence the complainant rectified the meter and he says that the opposite party had never checked the water meter till now. <br /> <br /> According to the complainant, the aforementioned act of opposite party amounted to clear deficiency in service . Hence he has approached before this Forum and filed this complaint seeking an order directing the opposite party <br /> to cancel the demand notice dated 04.05.06 and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards the mental agony, stress and strain suffered by the complainant.<br /> <br /> Notice was issued to opposite party for appearance. Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. <br /> - 3 -<br /> The opposite party herein states that the water meter fixed in the complainant's residence was newly installed on 30.04.2003. As per the reading taken on 02.07.2005, the consumption of water was 1574 Kilo litre, for the period from April 2003 to June 2005 (27 months). Accordingly the average consumption of water of the complainant is 58 KL per month.<br /> <br /> The opposite party also states that the total consumption of water for the period from July 2005 to February 2006 (8 months) was 1971 KL. The Meter reading was taken on 26.02.2006. The average consumption for one month is Rs.50 KL per month.<br /> <br /> The opposite party further submits that the water consumption charge for the last 35 months (from April 2003 to February 2006) was calculated @ Rs.226/- per month whereas the complainant has already remitted @ Rs.73/- per month for 34 months. It comes to an amount of Rs.2,482/-. By deducting the amount already remitted the balance amount comes to a sum of Rs.5,433/-. This is the actual amount that the complainant has to remit.<br /> <br /> The opposite party also states that the amount is only the actual value of the complainant's consumption of water. While taking the meter reading on <br /> 20.05.2006, it was noticed that the complainant's water meter was not properly working and hence the meter reading was not taken and not demanded for remitting the charge.<br /> <br /> The opposite party in his version also states that the water charge as per the demand notice was accurate and deservable to the department. The opposite party also says that the actual penalty and double meter charge for the consumption of water during the time of faulty meter has not demanded, <br /> - 4 -<br /> from the complainant. Hence the complainant's intention was only for obtaining the time of extension for remitting the amount by arguing about the faulty meter. <br /> <br /> The opposite party further states that there was no deficiency in service, negligence, unfair trade practice from their part and there was no case of mental agony, stress and strain suffered to the complainant.<br /> <br /> The opposite party prays before this forum that the the forum may be pleased to pass an order for a sum of Rs.5000/- from the complainant, as the loss incurred by the opposite party and remit the cost of proceedings.<br /> <br /> Complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents which was marked as Exhibits A1 and A2. Opposite party also filed proof affidavit and marked documents as B1 to B3<br /> <br /> Heard both parties.<br /> <br /> We have perused the Affidavits as well as documents produced.<br /> <br /> In the complaint as well as in affidavit it is stated that the complainant had received a notice on 04.03.2003 from opposite party No.1 stating that the water meter is not functioning. Accordingly the above meter was rectified. The opposite party had also admitted in their version that the new meter was installed in the complainant's residence on 30.04.2003. As per the reading taken on 02.07.2005 the consumption was 1574 Kilo litres for the period April 2003 to June 2005 (27 Months). Accordingly average consumption is 58 KL per month. <br /> - 5 -<br /> On 26.02.2006 again reading was noted as 1971 KL. (after 8 months). It is evident from Exbt B2 that the meter reading from April 2003 to February 2006 shows as 1971 KL. Only on 20.05.2006 it was noticed that the complainants water meter was not working and hence reading was not taken.<br /> <br /> From April 2003 the new meter was installed and it was found fault only on 20.05.2006. Till 20.05.2006 the complainant had not raised any complaints of water meter to the opposite party. No evidence is produced to prove that the meter was at fault during the period of April 2003 to February 2006. In the above context we are of the view that reading note on 26.02.2006 is without any mistake. The meter had been damaged only after February 2006. But it is seen that no amount was demanded from the complainant and after February 2006. Hence there is no illegality or irregularity on the part of opposite party in issuing Exbt A1.<br /> <br /> The amount was demanded only according to the average consumption of water shown from the period of April 2003 to February 2006 for which complainant had no complaints for the water meter. Hence we cannot attribute any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of July 2007.<br /> <br /> Member (SD)<br /> <br /> Member (SD)<br /> <br /> <br /> - 6 -<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant<br /> Ext.A1 – Demand Notice <br /> Ext.A2 – Provisional Invoice card issued by opposite party <br /> <br /> <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party<br /> Ext.B1 – Attested copy of bill issued to complainant<br /> Ext.B2 – List of meter reading<br /> Ext.B3 – Consumer personal ledger (attested copy)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Forwarded/By Order,<br /> Sd/-<br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br /> <br />