O R D E R
Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):
The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting a relief from the opposite party.
2. The complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant’s father is a consumer of Kerala Water Authority vide Con.No.224/D/Pandalam Thekkekkara. On 17.05.2013 the complainant’s father remitted Rs.1,440/- to opposite party as advance amount for the water consumption from October 2013 to September 2016. According to him, on 21.07.2015 the meter reading was 1139 kl. It is contended that he paid the advance amount of Rs.1,440/- for a period of 36 months and the average monthly payment was only Rs.40/-. On 24.09.2015 the meter reading was 1164 and the reading on 21.07.2015 was 1139. He again stated that the difference of these 2 months reading of Rs.25 kl. The opposite party issued a bill for an amount of Rs.10,388/- on 19.09.2015. According to him, the amount mentioned in the said bill is not correct hence he filed a complaint before opposite party on 26.09.2015. Aggrieved by the issuance of the above said bill and non redressal of his complaint the complainant approach before this Forum and filed this petition to set aside the bill amount dated 15.09.2015 for an amount of Rs.10,388/- and for other reliefs.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issue notice to the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed his version. The version is as follows: According to the opposite party, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is admitted that on 17.05.2013 the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.1,440/- as minimum charge for water connection to opposite party. When the water meter became faulty, as per the direction of the opposite party the complainant purchased a new meter for the reading purpose. On 04.01.2014 as per the reading of the new water meter the complainant consumed 169 kl of water and the opposite party calculated 21 kl. average use for a month. On 21.07.2015 as per the reading the consumption was 1139 kl. and calculated an average monthly consumption of 52.5 kl. for a period from 1/14 to 7/15. In the light of this consumption Rs.798/- was the monthly rate. It is contended that on the basis of this meter reading the bill dated 19.09.2015 for an amount of Rs.10,493/- was issued to the complainant. It is further contended that the bill issued on 19.09.2015 was the actual usage of water by the complainant hence no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. Opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
4. On the basis of the above contention of complainant and opposite party and after perusing the records before the Forum, we framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the case is maintainable before the Forum?
- Whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Regarding relief and cost?
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 to A8 series. On the other hand opposite party examined as DW1 and marked Ext.B1. Ext.A1 is the bill dated 19.09.2015 for Rs.10,493/-. Ext.A2 is the copy of receipt No.236477 dated 17.05.2013 for Rs.1,440/-. Ext.A3 is the demand and disconnection notice dated 16.07.2015. Ext.A4 is the reply letter dated 26.09.2015 sent by the complainant to opposite party. Ext.A5 is the letter dated 28.09.2015 sent by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A6 is the cash bill dated 17.05.2013 for Rs.2,100/- issued by Peedikail Stores, Pathanamthitta to the complainant. Ext.A7 is the notice dated 04.05.2013 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A8 series are two bills dated 24.11.2015 for Rs.10,592/- and 30.01.2016 for Rs.10,731/-. On the other side this opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and Ext.B1 was marked in favour of the opposite party. Ext.B1 is the reading sheet dated Nil issued by KWA, Pathanamthitta Section to the complainant’s father stating the monthly amount as on dated 04.02.2016. The complainant deposed before the Forum as PW1 more or less as per the contents of his complaint. According to him, prayer of the issuance of Ext.A1 bill nobody has taken his water meter reading and without a fair calculation the opposite party issued the Ext.A1 bill. He again deposed that he purchased the new water meter as per the instigation of the opposite party. According to him, after 17.05.2013 he did not remit any amount to opposite party for the consumption of water. He again deposed that the issuance of the bill without a proper meter reading is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party hence the Ext.A1 bill has to be set aside. The opposite party filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined him as DW1. When we peruse the proof affidavit of the DW1 it reveals that opposite party is clearly depending his version before the Forum. There is no need of more explanation with regard to his proof affidavit because it is a repetition of the above stated version. After the closure of evidence, we heard both sides.
6. Point No.1:- The opposite party in this case raised a contention to the effect that this case is not maintainable before the Forum. It is come out in evidence that the complainant’s father is a consumer of the opposite party and the opposite party is a service provider. Moreover, for the service rendered by the opposite party he paid an advance amount as per Ext.A2. On the basis of the above evidence we can safely arrive a condusion to the effect that the complainant’s father is a consumer of the opposite party and the case of the complainant is maintainable before this Forum. Hence Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant.
7. Point Nos.2 & 3:- For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together. When we peruse the available evidence before us it reveals that the opposite party issued Ext.A1 bill for an amount of Rs.10,388/- to the complainant’s father. According to the complainant, Ext.A1 bill issued without taking any proper water reading and the calculation of meter reading seen in Ext.A1 is not correct so the bill has to be set aside. On the other hand, the opposite party adduced evidence to the effect that on 21.07.2015 the meter reading was 1139 kl. and as per the said water reading the average consumption was 52.05 kl. per month. On the basis of this consumption from 1/14 to 7/15 the complainant has to pay Rs.798/- per month as water charge. DW1 deposed that based on the above consumption the bill dated 19.09.2015 for an amount of Rs.10,493/- was served to the complainant. When we examine the genuineness or correctness of Ext.A1 bill, it is clear that the evidence adduced by DW1 is sufficient to admit the relevancy of Ext.A1. When DW1 was cross-examined by PW1 nothing brought out to discard the evidence adduced by DW1 with regard to Ext.A1. He deposed in cross-examination, “10,388/- cq]m AS-bv¡Ww F¶v ImWn¨p sImSp¯ bill ASn-Øm\ cln-X-a-Ã. Spot billing \S¯n sImSp¯ bill BWv. 19.01.2015-Â disconnection notice sImSp-¯n-cp-¶p. D]-t`mKw ASn-Øm-\-am¡n sImSp¯ bill BWn-Xv. July 2015-Dw, September 2015-Dw reading ASn-Øm-\-am¡n h¶ calculation BWv 10,388/- F¶-Xv. Even though PW1 raised the doubt of genuineness with regard to Ext.A1 bill he failed to adduce any evidence to prove his contention. At the time of cross-examination of PW1, it is admitted that except Ext.A2 bill dated 17.05.2013 the complainant made any payment to opposite party. After Ext.A1 bill, it is to see that the opposite party issued Ext.A8 series water bill to the consumer dated 24.11.2015 and dated 30.01.2016. The main allegation of the PW1 in this case is that the opposite party did not take meter reading promptly and without proper meter reading the opposite party issued the above water bills. It is true that Ext.A1 bill is issued for the water consumption of 1/14 to 7/15, i.e. 19 months. The opposite party is admitted this fact through their version and in chief examination. But at the same time, it is pertinent to see that as per Ext.A8 series it reveals that the water reading has been taken for each 2 months and the bill is issuing for every 2 months. When considering the inordinate delay for taking the meter reading, the act of the opposite party cannot be treated as excusable or justifiable. As a public undertaking under the direct control of Govt. of Kerala it is the preliminary duty of the said authority to take the meter reading in time. It is admitted that 2 months duration in the time is allowed for taking meter reading. As per the testimony of DW1 it is also cleared. Even if, opposite party has taken a correct meter reading after a span of 19 months, an ordinary customer was not in a position to pay the amount as a whole to the concerned within time. The difficulty of remittance of a lumpsom amount by an ordinary consumer also has to be taken in to account when we are deciding this case. However, we find that the bill amount of Ext.A1 is correct. There is no need of an interference with regard to the sanctity of Ext.A1 as far as the available evidence is concerned. It is also taken into account that as per Ext.A4, it shows that the complainant filed a complaint with regard to Ext.A1 bill for an amount of Rs.10,493/- on 26.09.2015 and on 28.09.2015 itself the opposite party given a return reply to the complainant as per Ext.A5. The reply as per Ext.A5 is self explanatory and the reason for the issuance of Ext.A1 bill for Rs.10,493/- is clearly stated there. In this case, the complainant is not succeeded to prove that Ext.A1 bill is an exorbitant or erroneous as alleged. But on the other hand, the inordinate, unexplained and unjust act of the opposite party for the delay of taking the meter reading of the complainant is proved. Hence the opposite party is answerable to the complainant and we find deficiency in service against opposite party with regard to this defect. In the light of the above finding, we allowed the complaint partly and Point No. 2 and 3 found accordingly.
8. In the result, we pass the following orders:
(1) Complainant is directed to pay 50% of the Ext.A1 bill within one
month of the receipt of this order. If the complainant comply this
order he is also allowed to two months time for the remittance of
the remaining amount.
(2) Opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant from the date of
receipt of this order with 10% interest.
(3) A cost of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five hundred only) is
also allowed to the complainant from opposite party for interest of
10% from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 4th day of June, 2016.
(Sd/-)
P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member- II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Santhan. G
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Bill dated 19.09.2015 for Rs.10,493/-.
A2 : Copy of receipt No.236477 dated 17.05.2013 for Rs.1,440/-.
A3 : Demand and disconnection notice dated 16.07.2015.
A4 : Reply letter dated 26.09.2015 sent by the complainant to opposite party.
A5 : Letter dated 28.09.2015 sent by the opposite party to the complainant.
A6 : Cash bill dated 17.05.2013 for Rs.2,100/- issued by Peedikail Stores,
Pathanamthitta to the complainant.
A7 : Notice dated 04.05.2013 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
A8 series : Two bills dated 24.11.2015 for Rs.10,592/- and 30.01.2016 for Rs.10,731/-.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 : P. Nelson
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
B1 : Copy of Reading Sheet
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) Santhan, Perumbral Vadakkethil, Edamali, Thatta.P.O. – 691525,
Pathanamthitta.
(2) Asst. Exe. Engineer, O/o the Asst. Exe. Engineer, P.H. Sub Division,
Kerala Water Authority, Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Stock File.
