IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
C C No. 121/2016
Friday, the 30th day of December, 2016.
Petitioner : 1) T.O. Philip,
Thattaniath,
Mariyathuruthu P.O.
Kottayam – 686 017.
(Adv. George Itty T.)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Kerala Water Authority,
P.H. Sub Division,
Collectorate P.O.
Kottayam – 686 002.
Rep. by its Assistant Engineer.
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 12/04/2016 is as follows.
The complainant is the consumer of the opposite party having water connection vide consumer Number AMM 1792/D. The opposite party has issued bills for water charges periodically without taking reading from the water meter and the complainant had regularly remitted the amount as per the bills. Thus on April 2013, the opposite party has discounted the aforesaid water connection in connection with the charging of the main pipe line. But they has not reconnected the water connection to the newly erected pipe line. Though there was no water connection, the opposite party took meter reading and recorded the meter reading a ‘Nil’ reading and issued a bill for Rs.4,703/- dated 20/09/2013 for arrears of water charges. And the said bill amount was mistakenly remitted on 19/10/2013. The opposite party has failed to reconnect the water connection inspite of repeated requests and finally the complainant had requested the opposite party to close the water connection account by letter dated 10/03/2014 and also demanded to return the excess amount remitted on 19/10/2013. Then on the basis of the letter dated 10/03/2014 opposite party had removed the water meter from the premises of the complainant. But after that opposite party had issued a bill dated 05/08/2014 for Rs.8244, which includes the amount due for the previous bill as arrears. So the complainant had issued a lawyers notice dated 25/10/2014 to the Assistant Executive Engineer, demanding to withdraw all the bills issued for water charges after the date of disconnection and demanded for a reimbursement of the amount illegally collected on 19/10/2013. After the receipt of the said notice, opposite party again issued bills periodically. The opposite party issued bill dated 07/02/2015 for Rs.8,892/- and bill dated 18/02/2016 for Rs.10,301/- which includes the amount due under the previous bills. According to the complainant, he is not liable to pay the above said bill amount and the act of opposite parties in demanding for payment of water charges, after disconnection amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
Opposite party filed version admitting water connection of the complainant. According to the opposite party, the said water connection was taken on 08/11/2015 and from this the complainant was using the water supplied by the KWA. And the complainant was remitting the water charges according to the bills served from time to time. The water bills were issued to the complainant based on the meter reading taken by the meter readers. On verification, it is found that due to the oversight of the meter reader, some wrong readings are entered in the consumer personal ledger of the complainant. So necessary action has already been taken to cancel the wrong reading and the present water charge bill of the complainant will be revised based on the actual reading. Due to frequent breakage of old pipe line, a new pipeline was laid from Kudayampady bridge to Varissery Road. Shifting work of the house connection in the old pipe line were not included in this work. In order to avoid delay in getting water the consumers were advised to connect their house connections to the new pipe line at their own costs. As per the notice dated on 19/08/2013, the complainant was requested to connect his water connection to this newly laid pipeline. If the complainant wish to continue to get water connection in future, KWA is ready to reconnect the house connection to the newly laid pipe line at free of cost. The water charge and arrears of the complainant will be revised, based on the actual reading and if any excess payment has been made, it will be adjudicated in future water charges or it may be reimbursed after realizing the fund from Head Office. And they had already taken necessary action to cancel the present water charge bill. According to the opposite party, the bills were based on the previous average reading report of the meter readers and it will be cancelled with retrospective effect and complainant is not bound to pay any water charge amount. And the complainant is not required to remit the water charge for the period which he was not getting water. According to the opposite party, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of them.
Points for considerations are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
- Relief and cost?
Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of both sides and Ext.A1 to A10 documents from the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 document from the side of opposite party.
Point No.1
The crux of the complainants case is that the opposite party disconnected the water connection of the complainant during April 2013 and issued bills during the said period. Complainant seeks the relief of cancellation of bill dated 18/02/2014 for Rs.10,301/-. The disputed bill is produced and the same is marked as Ext.A10. In Ext.A10, the reading is shown as ‘DC’. Opposite party their version admitted the allegation of disconnection. Opposite party also stated that there are ready to cancel the bill and also adjust the excess amount if any remitted by the complainant. According to the complainant, the bill dated 20/09/2013 is remitted by him. The said fact of remittance was admitted by the opposite party. Admittedly, the bill is issued during the disconnection period. So the same is to be refunded. According to the complainant, he had applied for cancellation of his water connection. Ext.A1 is the copy of the registered letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party, Assistant Executive Engineer of the opposite party. In Ext.A1, complainant requested for cancellation of the water connection. According to the opposite party, they are ready to cancel the same. In our view, the act of opposite party in issuing bills to the complainant during disconnection period and in not cancel the water connection even after receiving Ext.A1 request, amounts to deficiency in service. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the finding in Point No.1, complaint is allowed.
In the result,
- The bill dated 18/02/2016 for an amount of Rs.10,301/- is cancelled.
- Opposite party is directed to refund Rs.4,703/- to the complainant.
- Opposite party is Ordered to process Ext.A1 request letter in accordance with the provisions of law.
- Opposite party is Ordered to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation to the complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 15% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of December, 2016.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1 : Copy of letter dtd.10/03/14 issued by the complainant to opposite party
Ext.A2 series: Postal receipts (2 Nos.)
Ext.A3 series : Postal AD card (2 Nos.)
Ext.A4 : Bill No.9088015 issued by opposite party
Ext.A5 : Office copy of lawyers notice dtd.25/10/2014 to opposite party
Ext.A6 series : Postal receipts (2 Nos.)
Ext.A7 series : Postal AD card (2 Nos.)
Ext.A8 : Bill No.10488024 issued by opposite party
Ext.A9 : Bill No.11390227 issued by opposite party
Ext.A10 : Bill No.16806029 issued by opposite party
Documents of opposite party
Ext.B1 : Copy of notice dtd.19/08/2013 issued by opposite party
By Order
Senior Superintendent
