Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

247/2000

John Sabriyar - Complainant(s)

Versus

KWA - Opp.Party(s)

Balasubramaniam

15 May 2009

ORDER


Thiruvananthapuram
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Vazhuthacaud
consumer case(CC) No. 247/2000

John Sabriyar 		...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

KWA 		...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Smt. Beena Kumari. A 2. Smt. S.K.Sreela 3. Sri G. Sivaprasad

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM


 

PRESENT:


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER


 

O.P. No. 247/2000 Filed on 9/5/2000

 

Dated: 15..05..2009


 

Complainant:


 

John Sabriyar, T.C.No.16/1393, "Master Mind Building", Kannettumukku, Trivandrum – 695 014.

(By Adv. P.V. Balasubramoniam)


 

Opposite party:


 

The Kerala Water Authority, Trivandrum – 695 033.

(By Adv. Santhamma Thomas)


 

This O.P having been heard on 30..04..2009, the Forum on 15..05..2009 delivered the following:


 

ORDER


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:


 

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of opposite party vide consumer No.VAZ 2961, that the original consumer was one Smt. K. Chellamma, who sold the premises in 1965 to one Elise Arthur and in 1994 Elise Arthur sold the premises to the complainant. The meter in respect of the said consumer No.is faulty since 1977. Complainant remitted Rs.650/- on 27/8/1994 as per the directions of the opposite party, that inspite of several requests and legal notice, the faulty meter was not replaced by the opposite party. Inaction on the part of the opposite party in the matter of replacing faulty meter with a good working meter, not only causes loss to the state but also infringes the right of the complainant to know his liability as per law to the opposite party in the matter of consumption of water. Complainant finally caused notice dated 6/12/1999 issued to the opposite party. Opposite party is liable for deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party to replace the faulty meter with a working meter, to assess water charge on the basis of actual consumption of water and to pay compensation towards mental agony and anguish.


 

2. Opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. As per records Smt. K. Chellamma is the consumer. The complainant should have contacted the Revenue section and got the ownership changed his name in time. Opposite party is unaware of the transaction as alleged in the complaint. It is true that the meter in respect of VAZ 2961 is faulty. Complainant got sanction for paying the arrears of water charges in 2 installments and he had remitted only Rs. 650/- on 27/8/1994. The water meter is to be repaired and replaced by the owner or occupier of the premises at his own cost, that the complainant did not approach opposite party as per rules. Hence complaint is not maintainable and opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.


 

3. The points that arise for consideration are:


 

          1. Whether complainant is liable to pay the amount vide bills dated 31/12/2001 and 16/1/2003?

             

          2. Whether complainant is entitled to replacement of faulty meter with new one?

             

          3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

             

          4. Reliefs and costs?


 

4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P16 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed affidavit and Ext.D1(series) was marked.


 

5. Points (i) to (iv) : It has been the case of the complainant that the original consumer vide VAZ 2961 was one Smt. K. Chellamma, that she sold the premises in 1965 to one Elise Arthur and in 1994 Elise Arthur sold the premises to the complainant that, the meter in respect of VAZ 2961 is faulty since 1977 and that complainant remitted Rs.650/- on 27/8/1994 as per the direction of opposite party. It has also been the case of the complainant that, in spite of several requests, the faulty meter is not replaced by the opposite party. Ext.P1 is the copy of the sale deed No.4105/1994 in the name of Sabariyar and Kanakamma. Exts.P2 to P11 are meter reading bills from 17/2/1982 to 10/6/1987. Ext.P12 is the notice dated 19/7/1994 issued to K. Chellamma informing her that she has not paid Rs.6,053/30 towards water charges from 2/1977 to 5/1994 as per bill and provisional invoice card issued within the time allowed and that the supply of water will be cut off from the said premises after 7 days of Ext.P12 notice. It is to be noted that in Exts. P2 to P11 it is recorded that meter reading is not clear. This means meter is not working. Ext.P13 is the copy of advocate notice and Ext.P14 is the acknowledgment card. Ext.P15 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 31/12/2001 for Rs.19,288/-. Ext.P16 is the consumer bill dated 16/1/2003 for Rs.21,467/-. It is pertinent to point out that meter reading is not recorded in Exts.P15 and P16 and meter status recorded is 'not working'. It is further to be noted that monthly water charges recorded as Rs.175/-. It is not clear from Exts.P15 & P16 from which date onwards water charges fell due. It is to be highlighted that the arrear bill must disclose the details of meter reading – present meter reading and previous meter reading, status of the water meter, arrear amount from which date the period starts etc., the veracity of Ext.P16 bill dated 16/1/2003 is in dispute. Opposite parties furnished consumer ledger copy marked as Ext.D1 (series). As per Ext.D1 consumer ledger, meter reading dates are 21/11/2002 & 18/1/2003, but meter readings not seen mentioned, while monthly charge is seen mentioned which would vary from Rs.131/- on 12/97 to Rs.177/- on 8/2001. Consumer ledger is in the custody of the opposite party. It is on the basis of the said ledger, Ext.P16 is seen prepared; while the status of the meter is 'non-working' and meter reading not recorded. Hence the preparation and issuance of Ext.P16 bill dated 16/1/2003, is devoid of bonafides. The next point requiring consideration is whether complainant is entitled to replacement of water meter with new one. Admittedly, the meter remains faulty provisions under Clause (b) and © of Regulation 12 shall apply for replacement of water meter. As per clause (b) of the said Regulation the meter at premises shall be provided by the consumer and as under Clause © , meter shall be procurred by the applicant and produced before the Assistant Executive Engineer for inspection and installation at site. Hence we find the opposite party is not liable to install a new meter in the premises. Further in this case still the connection is in the name of K. Chellamma. Submission by the complainant is that complainant is the owner of the said premises having the above said water connection from 1994 onwards by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed. There is no material on record to show that house connection is transferred in the name of the complainant. To meet the ends of justice and equity, first of all, the house connection should be transferred in the name of the complainant as per the provision of the Water Supply Regulations, thereafter complainant must be permitted to replace the water meter with the new one. Complainant has no case that he had contacted the opposite party and applied for change of house connection in his name. Complainant submits that he had remitted Rs. 650/- on 27/8/1994 as per the directions of the opposite party. Opposite party admitted the same in the version. Complainant has no case that he/his family has not used the water from the said connection from the date of execution of Ext.P1 sale deed (dated 26/11/1994). Complainant is liable to pay water charges from 26/11/1994 onwards. The arrear amount prior to 26/11/1994 never comes under the liability of the complainant. Hence complainant need not pay arrear amount prior to 26/11/1994. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that complainant has not acted as per Provisions of Water Supply Regulations in transferring house connection to his name and replacing the faulty meter with new one. Opposite party also has not acted as per the provisions of Water Supply Regulations to recover arrear amount by issuing timely bill. The question of replacement of meter if any would come only after effecting the transfer of house connection to the name of the complainant as per the Provisions of the Water Supply Regulations.


 


 

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The bills dated 31/12/2001 & 16/01/2003 (Exts.P15 & P16) issued by opposite parties are hereby cancelled. Opposite parties are at liberty to raise fresh bill for the whole period retrospectively from 26/11/1994 on the basis of average consumption for 3 months on the new meter to be installed, on transferring the house connection to the name of the complainant as per the Provisions of Water Supply Regulation. Opposite parties shall adjust amounts if any remitted by the complainant during the said period in the bill to be issued to the complainant. There will be no compensation and cost in facts and circumstances of the case.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.


 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15th day of May, 2009.


 

G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER


 

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

O.P.No. 247/2000

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of sale deed dated 26/11/1994 P2 : Copy of meter reading bill No.16/2248 dt. 17/2/82 for Rs.415/-.

P3 : " No.6/710 dt. 17/6/83 Rs.629/40

P4 : " No.22/1661 dated 18/5/85 for Rs.983/90

P5 : " No.1/1661 dated 17/1/85 for Rs.932/15

P6 : " No.6/264 dated 23/10/85 for Rs.1139/30

P7 : " No.6/387 dated 18/6/86 for Rs.1346/50

P8 : Original meter reading bill No.27/269 dated 18/2/86 for Rs.1242/90.

P9 : Photocopy of bill No.27/269 dated 18/2/86 for Rs.1242/90

P10 : Copy of meter reading bill No.19/219 dated 19/10/86 for Rs.1450/-.

P11 : Original bill No.19/584 dated 20/2/87 for Rs.1553/-.

P12 : Original bill No.551/94 dated 19/7/94

P13 : Copy of advocate notice dated 3/12/1999

P14 : Acknowledgment card dated 6/12

P15 : Affidavit filed by petitioner dated 21/3/2002

P16 : Affidavit filed with original consumer bill No.38 dated 16/1/2003

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties documents:

D1 : Consumer Ledger dated 3/2/2003 of consumer No.VAZ/2961

ad. PRESIDENT

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM


 

PRESENT:


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER


 

O.P. No. 247/2000 Filed on 9/5/2000

 

Dated: 15..05..2009


 

Complainant:


 

John Sabriyar, T.C.No.16/1393, "Master Mind Building", Kannettumukku, Trivandrum – 695 014.

(By Adv. P.V. Balasubramoniam)


 

Opposite party:


 

The Kerala Water Authority, Trivandrum – 695 033.

(By Adv. Santhamma Thomas)


 

This O.P having been heard on 30..04..2009, the Forum on 15..05..2009 delivered the following:


 

ORDER


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:


 

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of opposite party vide consumer No.VAZ 2961, that the original consumer was one Smt. K. Chellamma, who sold the premises in 1965 to one Elise Arthur and in 1994 Elise Arthur sold the premises to the complainant. The meter in respect of the said consumer No.is faulty since 1977. Complainant remitted Rs.650/- on 27/8/1994 as per the directions of the opposite party, that inspite of several requests and legal notice, the faulty meter was not replaced by the opposite party. Inaction on the part of the opposite party in the matter of replacing faulty meter with a good working meter, not only causes loss to the state but also infringes the right of the complainant to know his liability as per law to the opposite party in the matter of consumption of water. Complainant finally caused notice dated 6/12/1999 issued to the opposite party. Opposite party is liable for deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party to replace the faulty meter with a working meter, to assess water charge on the basis of actual consumption of water and to pay compensation towards mental agony and anguish.


 

2. Opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. As per records Smt. K. Chellamma is the consumer. The complainant should have contacted the Revenue section and got the ownership changed his name in time. Opposite party is unaware of the transaction as alleged in the complaint. It is true that the meter in respect of VAZ 2961 is faulty. Complainant got sanction for paying the arrears of water charges in 2 installments and he had remitted only Rs. 650/- on 27/8/1994. The water meter is to be repaired and replaced by the owner or occupier of the premises at his own cost, that the complainant did not approach opposite party as per rules. Hence complaint is not maintainable and opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.


 

3. The points that arise for consideration are:


 

          1. Whether complainant is liable to pay the amount vide bills dated 31/12/2001 and 16/1/2003?

             

          2. Whether complainant is entitled to replacement of faulty meter with new one?

             

          3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

             

          4. Reliefs and costs?


 

4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P16 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed affidavit and Ext.D1(series) was marked.


 

5. Points (i) to (iv) : It has been the case of the complainant that the original consumer vide VAZ 2961 was one Smt. K. Chellamma, that she sold the premises in 1965 to one Elise Arthur and in 1994 Elise Arthur sold the premises to the complainant that, the meter in respect of VAZ 2961 is faulty since 1977 and that complainant remitted Rs.650/- on 27/8/1994 as per the direction of opposite party. It has also been the case of the complainant that, in spite of several requests, the faulty meter is not replaced by the opposite party. Ext.P1 is the copy of the sale deed No.4105/1994 in the name of Sabariyar and Kanakamma. Exts.P2 to P11 are meter reading bills from 17/2/1982 to 10/6/1987. Ext.P12 is the notice dated 19/7/1994 issued to K. Chellamma informing her that she has not paid Rs.6,053/30 towards water charges from 2/1977 to 5/1994 as per bill and provisional invoice card issued within the time allowed and that the supply of water will be cut off from the said premises after 7 days of Ext.P12 notice. It is to be noted that in Exts. P2 to P11 it is recorded that meter reading is not clear. This means meter is not working. Ext.P13 is the copy of advocate notice and Ext.P14 is the acknowledgment card. Ext.P15 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 31/12/2001 for Rs.19,288/-. Ext.P16 is the consumer bill dated 16/1/2003 for Rs.21,467/-. It is pertinent to point out that meter reading is not recorded in Exts.P15 and P16 and meter status recorded is 'not working'. It is further to be noted that monthly water charges recorded as Rs.175/-. It is not clear from Exts.P15 & P16 from which date onwards water charges fell due. It is to be highlighted that the arrear bill must disclose the details of meter reading – present meter reading and previous meter reading, status of the water meter, arrear amount from which date the period starts etc., the veracity of Ext.P16 bill dated 16/1/2003 is in dispute. Opposite parties furnished consumer ledger copy marked as Ext.D1 (series). As per Ext.D1 consumer ledger, meter reading dates are 21/11/2002 & 18/1/2003, but meter readings not seen mentioned, while monthly charge is seen mentioned which would vary from Rs.131/- on 12/97 to Rs.177/- on 8/2001. Consumer ledger is in the custody of the opposite party. It is on the basis of the said ledger, Ext.P16 is seen prepared; while the status of the meter is 'non-working' and meter reading not recorded. Hence the preparation and issuance of Ext.P16 bill dated 16/1/2003, is devoid of bonafides. The next point requiring consideration is whether complainant is entitled to replacement of water meter with new one. Admittedly, the meter remains faulty provisions under Clause (b) and © of Regulation 12 shall apply for replacement of water meter. As per clause (b) of the said Regulation the meter at premises shall be provided by the consumer and as under Clause © , meter shall be procurred by the applicant and produced before the Assistant Executive Engineer for inspection and installation at site. Hence we find the opposite party is not liable to install a new meter in the premises. Further in this case still the connection is in the name of K. Chellamma. Submission by the complainant is that complainant is the owner of the said premises having the above said water connection from 1994 onwards by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed. There is no material on record to show that house connection is transferred in the name of the complainant. To meet the ends of justice and equity, first of all, the house connection should be transferred in the name of the complainant as per the provision of the Water Supply Regulations, thereafter complainant must be permitted to replace the water meter with the new one. Complainant has no case that he had contacted the opposite party and applied for change of house connection in his name. Complainant submits that he had remitted Rs. 650/- on 27/8/1994 as per the directions of the opposite party. Opposite party admitted the same in the version. Complainant has no case that he/his family has not used the water from the said connection from the date of execution of Ext.P1 sale deed (dated 26/11/1994). Complainant is liable to pay water charges from 26/11/1994 onwards. The arrear amount prior to 26/11/1994 never comes under the liability of the complainant. Hence complainant need not pay arrear amount prior to 26/11/1994. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that complainant has not acted as per Provisions of Water Supply Regulations in transferring house connection to his name and replacing the faulty meter with new one. Opposite party also has not acted as per the provisions of Water Supply Regulations to recover arrear amount by issuing timely bill. The question of replacement of meter if any would come only after effecting the transfer of house connection to the name of the complainant as per the Provisions of the Water Supply Regulations.


 


 

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The bills dated 31/12/2001 & 16/01/2003 (Exts.P15 & P16) issued by opposite parties are hereby cancelled. Opposite parties are at liberty to raise fresh bill for the whole period retrospectively from 26/11/1994 on the basis of average consumption for 3 months on the new meter to be installed, on transferring the house connection to the name of the complainant as per the Provisions of Water Supply Regulation. Opposite parties shall adjust amounts if any remitted by the complainant during the said period in the bill to be issued to the complainant. There will be no compensation and cost in facts and circumstances of the case.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.


 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15th day of May, 2009.


 

G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER


 

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

O.P.No. 247/2000

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of sale deed dated 26/11/1994 P2 : Copy of meter reading bill No.16/2248 dt. 17/2/82 for Rs.415/-.

P3 : " No.6/710 dt. 17/6/83 Rs.629/40

P4 : " No.22/1661 dated 18/5/85 for Rs.983/90

P5 : " No.1/1661 dated 17/1/85 for Rs.932/15

P6 : " No.6/264 dated 23/10/85 for Rs.1139/30

P7 : " No.6/387 dated 18/6/86 for Rs.1346/50

P8 : Original meter reading bill No.27/269 dated 18/2/86 for Rs.1242/90.

P9 : Photocopy of bill No.27/269 dated 18/2/86 for Rs.1242/90

P10 : Copy of meter reading bill No.19/219 dated 19/10/86 for Rs.1450/-.

P11 : Original bill No.19/584 dated 20/2/87 for Rs.1553/-.

P12 : Original bill No.551/94 dated 19/7/94

P13 : Copy of advocate notice dated 3/12/1999

P14 : Acknowledgment card dated 6/12

P15 : Affidavit filed by petitioner dated 21/3/2002

P16 : Affidavit filed with original consumer bill No.38 dated 16/1/2003

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties documents:

D1 : Consumer Ledger dated 3/2/2003 of consumer No.VAZ/2961

ad. PRESIDENT

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM


 

PRESENT:


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER


 

O.P. No. 247/2000 Filed on 9/5/2000

 

Dated: 15..05..2009


 

Complainant:


 

John Sabriyar, T.C.No.16/1393, "Master Mind Building", Kannettumukku, Trivandrum – 695 014.

(By Adv. P.V. Balasubramoniam)


 

Opposite party:


 

The Kerala Water Authority, Trivandrum – 695 033.

(By Adv. Santhamma Thomas)


 

This O.P having been heard on 30..04..2009, the Forum on 15..05..2009 delivered the following:


 

ORDER


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:


 

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of opposite party vide consumer No.VAZ 2961, that the original consumer was one Smt. K. Chellamma, who sold the premises in 1965 to one Elise Arthur and in 1994 Elise Arthur sold the premises to the complainant. The meter in respect of the said consumer No.is faulty since 1977. Complainant remitted Rs.650/- on 27/8/1994 as per the directions of the opposite party, that inspite of several requests and legal notice, the faulty meter was not replaced by the opposite party. Inaction on the part of the opposite party in the matter of replacing faulty meter with a good working meter, not only causes loss to the state but also infringes the right of the complainant to know his liability as per law to the opposite party in the matter of consumption of water. Complainant finally caused notice dated 6/12/1999 issued to the opposite party. Opposite party is liable for deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party to replace the faulty meter with a working meter, to assess water charge on the basis of actual consumption of water and to pay compensation towards mental agony and anguish.


 

2. Opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. As per records Smt. K. Chellamma is the consumer. The complainant should have contacted the Revenue section and got the ownership changed his name in time. Opposite party is unaware of the transaction as alleged in the complaint. It is true that the meter in respect of VAZ 2961 is faulty. Complainant got sanction for paying the arrears of water charges in 2 installments and he had remitted only Rs. 650/- on 27/8/1994. The water meter is to be repaired and replaced by the owner or occupier of the premises at his own cost, that the complainant did not approach opposite party as per rules. Hence complaint is not maintainable and opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.


 

3. The points that arise for consideration are:


 

          1. Whether complainant is liable to pay the amount vide bills dated 31/12/2001 and 16/1/2003?

             

          2. Whether complainant is entitled to replacement of faulty meter with new one?

             

          3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

             

          4. Reliefs and costs?


 

4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P16 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed affidavit and Ext.D1(series) was marked.


 

5. Points (i) to (iv) : It has been the case of the complainant that the original consumer vide VAZ 2961 was one Smt. K. Chellamma, that she sold the premises in 1965 to one Elise Arthur and in 1994 Elise Arthur sold the premises to the complainant that, the meter in respect of VAZ 2961 is faulty since 1977 and that complainant remitted Rs.650/- on 27/8/1994 as per the direction of opposite party. It has also been the case of the complainant that, in spite of several requests, the faulty meter is not replaced by the opposite party. Ext.P1 is the copy of the sale deed No.4105/1994 in the name of Sabariyar and Kanakamma. Exts.P2 to P11 are meter reading bills from 17/2/1982 to 10/6/1987. Ext.P12 is the notice dated 19/7/1994 issued to K. Chellamma informing her that she has not paid Rs.6,053/30 towards water charges from 2/1977 to 5/1994 as per bill and provisional invoice card issued within the time allowed and that the supply of water will be cut off from the said premises after 7 days of Ext.P12 notice. It is to be noted that in Exts. P2 to P11 it is recorded that meter reading is not clear. This means meter is not working. Ext.P13 is the copy of advocate notice and Ext.P14 is the acknowledgment card. Ext.P15 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 31/12/2001 for Rs.19,288/-. Ext.P16 is the consumer bill dated 16/1/2003 for Rs.21,467/-. It is pertinent to point out that meter reading is not recorded in Exts.P15 and P16 and meter status recorded is 'not working'. It is further to be noted that monthly water charges recorded as Rs.175/-. It is not clear from Exts.P15 & P16 from which date onwards water charges fell due. It is to be highlighted that the arrear bill must disclose the details of meter reading – present meter reading and previous meter reading, status of the water meter, arrear amount from which date the period starts etc., the veracity of Ext.P16 bill dated 16/1/2003 is in dispute. Opposite parties furnished consumer ledger copy marked as Ext.D1 (series). As per Ext.D1 consumer ledger, meter reading dates are 21/11/2002 & 18/1/2003, but meter readings not seen mentioned, while monthly charge is seen mentioned which would vary from Rs.131/- on 12/97 to Rs.177/- on 8/2001. Consumer ledger is in the custody of the opposite party. It is on the basis of the said ledger, Ext.P16 is seen prepared; while the status of the meter is 'non-working' and meter reading not recorded. Hence the preparation and issuance of Ext.P16 bill dated 16/1/2003, is devoid of bonafides. The next point requiring consideration is whether complainant is entitled to replacement of water meter with new one. Admittedly, the meter remains faulty provisions under Clause (b) and © of Regulation 12 shall apply for replacement of water meter. As per clause (b) of the said Regulation the meter at premises shall be provided by the consumer and as under Clause © , meter shall be procurred by the applicant and produced before the Assistant Executive Engineer for inspection and installation at site. Hence we find the opposite party is not liable to install a new meter in the premises. Further in this case still the connection is in the name of K. Chellamma. Submission by the complainant is that complainant is the owner of the said premises having the above said water connection from 1994 onwards by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed. There is no material on record to show that house connection is transferred in the name of the complainant. To meet the ends of justice and equity, first of all, the house connection should be transferred in the name of the complainant as per the provision of the Water Supply Regulations, thereafter complainant must be permitted to replace the water meter with the new one. Complainant has no case that he had contacted the opposite party and applied for change of house connection in his name. Complainant submits that he had remitted Rs. 650/- on 27/8/1994 as per the directions of the opposite party. Opposite party admitted the same in the version. Complainant has no case that he/his family has not used the water from the said connection from the date of execution of Ext.P1 sale deed (dated 26/11/1994). Complainant is liable to pay water charges from 26/11/1994 onwards. The arrear amount prior to 26/11/1994 never comes under the liability of the complainant. Hence complainant need not pay arrear amount prior to 26/11/1994. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that complainant has not acted as per Provisions of Water Supply Regulations in transferring house connection to his name and replacing the faulty meter with new one. Opposite party also has not acted as per the provisions of Water Supply Regulations to recover arrear amount by issuing timely bill. The question of replacement of meter if any would come only after effecting the transfer of house connection to the name of the complainant as per the Provisions of the Water Supply Regulations.


 


 

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The bills dated 31/12/2001 & 16/01/2003 (Exts.P15 & P16) issued by opposite parties are hereby cancelled. Opposite parties are at liberty to raise fresh bill for the whole period retrospectively from 26/11/1994 on the basis of average consumption for 3 months on the new meter to be installed, on transferring the house connection to the name of the complainant as per the Provisions of Water Supply Regulation. Opposite parties shall adjust amounts if any remitted by the complainant during the said period in the bill to be issued to the complainant. There will be no compensation and cost in facts and circumstances of the case.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.


 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15th day of May, 2009.


 

G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER


 

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

O.P.No. 247/2000

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of sale deed dated 26/11/1994 P2 : Copy of meter reading bill No.16/2248 dt. 17/2/82 for Rs.415/-.

P3 : " No.6/710 dt. 17/6/83 Rs.629/40

P4 : " No.22/1661 dated 18/5/85 for Rs.983/90

P5 : " No.1/1661 dated 17/1/85 for Rs.932/15

P6 : " No.6/264 dated 23/10/85 for Rs.1139/30

P7 : " No.6/387 dated 18/6/86 for Rs.1346/50

P8 : Original meter reading bill No.27/269 dated 18/2/86 for Rs.1242/90.

P9 : Photocopy of bill No.27/269 dated 18/2/86 for Rs.1242/90

P10 : Copy of meter reading bill No.19/219 dated 19/10/86 for Rs.1450/-.

P11 : Original bill No.19/584 dated 20/2/87 for Rs.1553/-.

P12 : Original bill No.551/94 dated 19/7/94

P13 : Copy of advocate notice dated 3/12/1999

P14 : Acknowledgment card dated 6/12

P15 : Affidavit filed by petitioner dated 21/3/2002

P16 : Affidavit filed with original consumer bill No.38 dated 16/1/2003

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties documents:

D1 : Consumer Ledger dated 3/2/2003 of consumer No.VAZ/2961

ad. PRESIDENT

 

 




......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad