KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 702/2011

DATED. 27.04.2012

PRESENT:-

SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR     :    MEMBER

 APPELLANT

Santhosh Kumar

S/o Velayuddhan Nair,

Sreenuruga Buildings, Kattakkada,

Thiruvananthapuram.

                  (  Rep. by Adv.   Sri. V.S. Harikrishnan & T.K. Ajith) 

                                          Vs

RESPONDENTS

1.          Kerala Water Authority

Rep. by its Managing Director,Jala Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.

2.          Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority,

Water supply Division , Kattakkada.

                                                (  Rep. by Adv.   Sri. R. Rajesh)

JUDGMENT 

SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR     :    MEMBER

The complainant in O.P. 263/04 before the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram has come up in this appeal who is aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint vide order dated 30.4.2011 of the Forum below. 

          2.  The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he had obtained water connection from the opposite parties in the year 1997 and that there was no regular water supply to the complainant.  It is his very case that on 12.2.2004 , he received a bill directing him to pay an amount of Rs. 14,601/- and in spite of his representation to the second opposite party, specifically stating that the meter was not properly working and the amount arrived at by the second opposite party was incorrect and exorbitant, the opposite party issued a letter dated 6.4.2004 asking the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 15,207/- In the complaint deficiency in service was alleged by the complainant and he prayed for directions to the opposite parties to cancel the bill and to pay compensation and costs.

      3.   The second opposite party filed version contending that the complainant did not pay even a rupee for the consumption of water right from the date of connection and it was for non payment of the bill for Rs.14,601/- that another bill was issued on 6.4.2004 which contained the future charge also from 2/2004 and as he did not care to pay the amount, disconnection was effected on 15.4.2004. Contending for the position that there was no deficiency in service, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.  The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as Pw1 and Exbts. P1 to P4 were  marked on his side.    The second opposite party was examined as Dw1 and Exbts. D1 to D5 were marked on his side.

5.   Heard both sides.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has argued before us that the second opposite party was not correct in issuing a bill based on a non functioning meter.  It is submitted by him that even the opposite party has admitted that the meter was faulty as back in 2002 and the issuance of the bill though challenged by the complainant had been confirmed and without any advertence to the representation of the complainant the connection was disconnected which is highly irregular, unethical and un justifiable.  However it is admitted by the learned counsel that no amount for the period from the date of connection was paid by the complainant and it is his case that no bills were issued to the complainant and hence there was no payment.  He has also a case that no provisional card was issued to the complainant and hence he prayed for canceling Ext. P2 letter accompanied by P3 bill.  

7. All the same the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite parties submitted that the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum below is just and correct,  since inspite of the issuance of the bill the complainant had not paid any amount towards consumption of water he had made.  It is argued that it is false to say that there was no water supply to the complainant and if there was no water the complainant would have definitely approached the opposite parties with the said complaint.  He has also submitted that it was only after getting a bill from the opposite parties that the complainant turned up with the complaint of ‘no water’.  He has a further case that it was the duty of the complainant to remit the charges as per the provisional invoice card  issued to the complainant and since the complainant had not remitted any amount towards water charges from the date of connection till April, 2004,  the order of the Forum below is only to be upheld and the appeal dismissed with compensatory costs.

On hearing both sides and also on perusing the records we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the complainant, though had obtained the water connection as back in 1997, had not remitted even a paise towards water charges. The complainant would argue that he was not served with any bill and the opposite parties would contend a provisional invoice was issued to the complainant and the complainant ought to have remitted the amount or atleast the complainant could have approached the opposite parties with the complaint of non issuance of the bill or that there was no water supply to him.  We find that the opposite parties had also been a little bit negligent in observing that the complainant was not paying any charges till February 2004 though the connection was given as back in 1997.  The opposite parties would argue that they had given a letter dated 16.7.02 stating that the meter was defective and it was to be replaced by the complainant.  However it is also found that the opposite parties had recorded the readings in 10/98 and 10/99 as per Ext. A4 and we find that for 12 months the complainant had consumed 159Kltrs of water.  The case of faulty meter has been intimated only in 7/2002.   Considering the fact that the complainant was at fault in not remitting the water charges and also that the opposite parties were deficient in realizing the charges from the complainant, we find that the total dismissal of the complaint by the Forum below can not be upheld.  At the same time the complaint can not be allowed in toto.  The complainant is liable to pay charges for the water supply taken by him.     We find that from 10/98 to 10/99 the average consumption is calculated to be 13Kltrs per month.  The complainant is liable to pay water charges for the average consumption of 13Kltrs per month for the period from January, 1997 to 15/04/04,  the date of disconnection of water supply by the second opposite party.  Since the opposite parties were careless and negligent in issuing the bill at the appropriate time and also that the complaint was pending before the Forum  and this Commission from 2004 to 2012,  the complainant is not liable to pay any penal charges for the amount arrived at based on the above calculation. 

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the directions as indicated above.  Thereby the complainant is liable to pay only the charges for 13Kltrs of water per month for the period from January, 1997 to 4/04 without any penal charges within a period of 2months from the date of receipt of the bill issued by the opposite parties failing which he is liable to pay the penal charges also as per rules of the opposite parties.   In the facts and circumstances of the case the complainant is not entitled to any compensation or costs. 

The office is directed to send back the L.C.R. to the Forum along with the copy of this order.

                                S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR  :  MEMBER

ST