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. 280/2002 Filed on 3/7/2002 Dated 28..02..2009
Complainant:
K. Radhakumari Amma, T.C.48/882(2), Paravankunnu junction, Manacaud-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Cherunniyoor P. Sasidharan Nair)
Opposite parties:
Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Managing Director. The Assistant Executive Engineer, KWA., Water Works, Kuriathy Sub Division (Chalai Section), Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been heard on 16..02..2009, the Forum on 28..02..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.MD/7173/N, that the complainant was in Chennai for the last five years and the complainant's mother-in-law and her sister-in-law's daughter were residing in the above said premise since 1998 and that the complainant had remitted water charges till October 1997 as per the provisional invoice card. The complainant's connection was in domestic category. A bill dated 31/12/2001 was served on the house of the complainant by the 1st opposite party wherein it was shown that the consumer class of the complainant was non-domestic, the meter was not working and seeking arrears for the period upto 11/2001 as Rs.1,10,714/-. The monthly rate was shown as Rs.877/- from 1/04/1999. Another bill was issued for Rs.1,11,593/- and another bill dated 18/8/2003 for Rs.1,66,862/- was also served to the complainant. Complainant had not received any bills or other information regarding any revision of bill. Complainant's mother-in-law sent a letter to the 2nd opposite party to issue a revised bill and also to take necessary arrangements and replacement of faulty meter. A bill dated 31/3/2002 was issued to the complainant by the 1st opposite party for Rs. 1,20,235/- for arrears upto 2/2002. The complainant has to pay only a sum of Rs.37,611/- even admitting that monthly charges at the rate of Rs.877/-. The opposite parties are not justified in taxing the complainant after a lapse of 5 years without informing to what period the bill pertains to and the reasons for charging an exorbitant amount. There is unfair trade practice, negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint to cancel the bills dated 31/12/2001, 31/3/2002 & 18/8/2003, to direct the opposite parties to issue a correct revised bill rectifying the defects, to reconnect connection, to replace the defective meter and to award compensation and cost.
2. Opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The connection was given on 13/9/1986. Due to unauthorised use of water it was treated as non-domestic from 10/96 onwards. The complainant is a defaulter. The last payment of water charge was made on 25/1/1994. The complainant used water unauthorisedly for construction purpose, without intimating and getting prior sanction from the opposite parties. As arrear accumulated a bill dated 31/12/2001 for Rs.1,11,593/- was served to the complainant. The complainant had not converted non-domestic connection to domestic. The water meter was fixed on 12/10/1990. Details of the said meter are as follows: Date Reading Quantity period Demand (Rs.) consumed(kl)
Average cost for up 10/90 Rs.85/- water used for building construction work as per Asst. Ex. Engineers instruction dated 3/5/1991 (6M2) 18kl
10/2/1991 214 214 12/10/90 to 1/91 Rs. 102
9/8/1991 801 587 2/91 to 7/91 Rs. 345
11/3/1992 1262 461 8/91 to 2/92 Rs. 709
11/7/1993 3627 2365 3/92 to 6/93 Rs.6125
12/7/1994 5134 1507 7/93 to 6/94 Rs.5095
9/5/1995 6815 1401 7/94 to 4/95 Rs.5480
8/1995 7130 315 5/95 to 7/95 Rs. 922
8/95 to 9/96 Rs.4970
10/96 to 3/99 Rs.16890 (ND rate) ------------------ Arrears upto 3/99 Rs.40759
Remittance Rs. 4256 ------------------ Balance upto 3/99 Rs.36503 ===========
The water meter attached was found 20% fast as per test certificate. Further the meter went out of order after recording 7186kl. But the consumer has not taken initiative for the replacement of the defective meter. Since the meter is not working the monthly average consumption is fixed as 98kl. As the complainant failed to clear the arrears even after bills were issued, opposite party was forced to disconnect the connection on 25/6/2002. As per interim order of this Forum water supply was restored on payment of Rs.40,000/-. Deducting the remittance an amount of Rs.92,096/- is outstanding upto 7/2002. Hence there has been no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bills dated 31/12/2001, 31/3/2002 & 18/8/2003 cancelled? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Other Reliefs and costs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. Opposite parties did not file affidavit or documents.
5. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.MD/7173/N. It has been the case of the complainant that the said connection is under domestic category, that the complainant had remitted the water charges at the rate of Rs. 355/- per month till 1997 as per provisional invoice card and that a bill dated 31/12/2001 was served to the complainant by the 1st opposite party seeking arrears upto 11/2001 as Rs. 1,10,714/- by putting the consumer under non-domestic category. It has also been the case of the complainant that the complainant was in Chennai for the last 5 years, that the complainant's mother-in-law and her sister-in-law's daughter were the only persons residing in the house of the complainant since 1998 and that the bills issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant was without any basis. Ext.P1 is the copy of the provisional invoice card issued to the consumer. As per Ext.P1 Consumer No.is MD/7173/N, category is “domestic” and the initial monthly amount is Rs.225/-, which rose to Rs.309/- from 6/93 and to Rs.355/- from 6/94 and the place of remittance is Dhanalekshmi Bank, Pazhavangadi Branch, payment schedule is given on the over leaf of Ext.P1, wherein Rs.1,933/- is seen remitted on 21/10/1997. Complainant did not produce any document showing prior payments. As per Ext.P1, the arrears of Rs.456/50 is due upto 7/91. Opposite parties in their version stated that the complainant is a defaulter, and that the last payment of arrears by the complainant was on 25/1/1994. Opposite parties did not challenge the affidavit of the complainant nor did opposite parties file affidavit or documents. Hence the affidavit of the complainant remains uncontroverted. As per Ext.P1 complainant is seen remitted water charge till 10/1997. As per provisions of the Water Supply Regulations, the actual amount due will be ascertained on reading the meter and necessary adjustment bill showing amounts due to/from the consumer will be sent once in six months. The case of the complainant is that no adjustment bill was served during the past five years (from 1997) and that the monthly payment as per the invoice card (Ext.P1) would subsist. There is no plea in the version that opposite parties had served the adjustment bill to the complainant during the said period.
6. Ext.P2 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 31/12/2001 wherein it is stated consumer class is non-domestic, status of the meter is not working, average consumption is 98kl., monthly charge is Rs.879/- and arrears upto 11/2001 is Rs.1,11,593/-. It is pleaded in the version that complainant had used water unauthorisedly for construction purpose, without intimating and getting prior sanction from the opposite parties and that the said connection had been treated under non-domestic category from 10/96 onwards based on report of unauthorised usage of water for construction purpose. Opposite parties did not file the said report nor did opposite parties attempt to examine the reporter, nor did opposite parties file affidavit to controvert the affidavit of the complainant. The initial onus of proving the unauthorised use of water by the complainant would rest on the persons who raise such allegation. No evidence from the opposite parties either documentary or oral. Hence the categorisation under non-domestic category is devoid of bonafides. In the version it is stated that water meter attached was found 20% fast as per test certificate, and further that the said meter went out of order after recording 7186kl. There is no material on record to substantiate this. Mere plea in the version without cogent, relevant and convincing evidence would not stand. As per version, meter readings were taken on 10/2/1991, 9/8/1991, 11/3/1992, 11/7/1997, 12/7/1994, 9/5/1995 & 8/95. If adjustment bills were issued immediately after the each reading, it would not saddle the 'consumer'. Non-delivery of adjustment bill in time would definitely against the provisions 13 of the Regulation. It is further to be mentioned that the coversion of consumer class from domestic to non-domestic is without any reasons and without knowledge and consent of the complainant. Coversion of consumer class lacks bonafides.
7. In the absence of any evidence in support of the version, we are inclined to adopt the affidavit of the complainant. Submission by the complainant is that as per order dated 12/7/2002 the connection was restored by opposite parties on receipt of Rs.40,000/- as interim payment from the complainant. Ext.P3 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 31/3/2002 for Rs.1,21,114/-. In Ext.P2 also status of the meter is not working. Ext.P5 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 18/8/2003 for Rs.1,66,862/- wherein the status of the meter mentioned is not working and consumer class is non-domestic. In all the bills (Ext.P2,P3 & P5) the status of the meter is 'not working' and consumer class is non-domestic. The amounts mentioned in Ext.P2,P3 & P5 are without any basis and hence the said bills deserves to be cancelled. Opposite parties had received Rs.40,000/- as interim payment as per order dated 12/7/2002 and restored connection accordingly. The order dated 12/7/2002 deserves to be made absolute. Meter status is 'not working' and assessment of water charge on the basis of non working meter under non-domestic class would not ensure equity and justice. Water consumed by the complainant was not assessed as per the provision of the Water Supply Regulations. Taking into consideration of the totality of circumstances we think justice will be well met if water charge is assessed on the basis of average consumption of water for 3 months on installation of a new water meter. Non-issuance of adjustment bill in time would definitely amount to deficiency in service.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The consumer bills (Exts.P2,P3 & P5) issued by opposite parties are hereby cancelled. Opposite parties shall permit the complainant to install a new water meter. On installation of new water meter, opposite parties shall assess water charge on the basis of average consumption for 3 months retrospectively for the whole period from 11/1997 onwards under domestic category, on the basis of which opposite parties shall raise fresh consumer bill after adjusting the amounts already remitted by the complainant after the filing of the complaint (after 3/7/2002). 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 28th day of February, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.280/2002 APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness: NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of provisional invoice card of consumer No.MD 7173 P2 : " consumer bill dated 31/12/2001 of bill No.KWA/MD/Jan/2002/-303 P3 : " dated 31/03/2002 of bill No.KWA/MD/Apr/2002/- 126 P4 : Copy of letter issued to the opposite parties.
Opposite parties' witness: NIL
Opposite parties' documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
ad. 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. 280/2002 Filed on 3/7/2002 Dated 28..02..2009
Complainant:
K. Radhakumari Amma, T.C.48/882(2), Paravankunnu junction, Manacaud-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Cherunniyoor P. Sasidharan Nair)
Opposite parties:
Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its Managing Director. The Assistant Executive Engineer, KWA., Water Works, Kuriathy Sub Division (Chalai Section), Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been heard on 16..02..2009, the Forum on 28..02..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.MD/7173/N, that the complainant was in Chennai for the last five years and the complainant's mother-in-law and her sister-in-law's daughter were residing in the above said premise since 1998 and that the complainant had remitted water charges till October 1997 as per the provisional invoice card. The complainant's connection was in domestic category. A bill dated 31/12/2001 was served on the house of the complainant by the 1st opposite party wherein it was shown that the consumer class of the complainant was non-domestic, the meter was not working and seeking arrears for the period upto 11/2001 as Rs.1,10,714/-. The monthly rate was shown as Rs.877/- from 1/04/1999. Another bill was issued for Rs.1,11,593/- and another bill dated 18/8/2003 for Rs.1,66,862/- was also served to the complainant. Complainant had not received any bills or other information regarding any revision of bill. Complainant's mother-in-law sent a letter to the 2nd opposite party to issue a revised bill and also to take necessary arrangements and replacement of faulty meter. A bill dated 31/3/2002 was issued to the complainant by the 1st opposite party for Rs. 1,20,235/- for arrears upto 2/2002. The complainant has to pay only a sum of Rs.37,611/- even admitting that monthly charges at the rate of Rs.877/-. The opposite parties are not justified in taxing the complainant after a lapse of 5 years without informing to what period the bill pertains to and the reasons for charging an exorbitant amount. There is unfair trade practice, negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint to cancel the bills dated 31/12/2001, 31/3/2002 & 18/8/2003, to direct the opposite parties to issue a correct revised bill rectifying the defects, to reconnect connection, to replace the defective meter and to award compensation and cost.
2. Opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The connection was given on 13/9/1986. Due to unauthorised use of water it was treated as non-domestic from 10/96 onwards. The complainant is a defaulter. The last payment of water charge was made on 25/1/1994. The complainant used water unauthorisedly for construction purpose, without intimating and getting prior sanction from the opposite parties. As arrear accumulated a bill dated 31/12/2001 for Rs.1,11,593/- was served to the complainant. The complainant had not converted non-domestic connection to domestic. The water meter was fixed on 12/10/1990. Details of the said meter are as follows: Date Reading Quantity period Demand (Rs.) consumed(kl)
Average cost for up 10/90 Rs.85/- water used for building construction work as per Asst. Ex. Engineers instruction dated 3/5/1991 (6M2) 18kl
10/2/1991 214 214 12/10/90 to 1/91 Rs. 102
9/8/1991 801 587 2/91 to 7/91 Rs. 345
11/3/1992 1262 461 8/91 to 2/92 Rs. 709
11/7/1993 3627 2365 3/92 to 6/93 Rs.6125
12/7/1994 5134 1507 7/93 to 6/94 Rs.5095
9/5/1995 6815 1401 7/94 to 4/95 Rs.5480
8/1995 7130 315 5/95 to 7/95 Rs. 922
8/95 to 9/96 Rs.4970
10/96 to 3/99 Rs.16890 (ND rate) ------------------ Arrears upto 3/99 Rs.40759
Remittance Rs. 4256 ------------------ Balance upto 3/99 Rs.36503 ===========
The water meter attached was found 20% fast as per test certificate. Further the meter went out of order after recording 7186kl. But the consumer has not taken initiative for the replacement of the defective meter. Since the meter is not working the monthly average consumption is fixed as 98kl. As the complainant failed to clear the arrears even after bills were issued, opposite party was forced to disconnect the connection on 25/6/2002. As per interim order of this Forum water supply was restored on payment of Rs.40,000/-. Deducting the remittance an amount of Rs.92,096/- is outstanding upto 7/2002. Hence there has been no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bills dated 31/12/2001, 31/3/2002 & 18/8/2003 cancelled? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Other Reliefs and costs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. Opposite parties did not file affidavit or documents.
5. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.MD/7173/N. It has been the case of the complainant that the said connection is under domestic category, that the complainant had remitted the water charges at the rate of Rs. 355/- per month till 1997 as per provisional invoice card and that a bill dated 31/12/2001 was served to the complainant by the 1st opposite party seeking arrears upto 11/2001 as Rs. 1,10,714/- by putting the consumer under non-domestic category. It has also been the case of the complainant that the complainant was in Chennai for the last 5 years, that the complainant's mother-in-law and her sister-in-law's daughter were the only persons residing in the house of the complainant since 1998 and that the bills issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant was without any basis. Ext.P1 is the copy of the provisional invoice card issued to the consumer. As per Ext.P1 Consumer No.is MD/7173/N, category is “domestic” and the initial monthly amount is Rs.225/-, which rose to Rs.309/- from 6/93 and to Rs.355/- from 6/94 and the place of remittance is Dhanalekshmi Bank, Pazhavangadi Branch, payment schedule is given on the over leaf of Ext.P1, wherein Rs.1,933/- is seen remitted on 21/10/1997. Complainant did not produce any document showing prior payments. As per Ext.P1, the arrears of Rs.456/50 is due upto 7/91. Opposite parties in their version stated that the complainant is a defaulter, and that the last payment of arrears by the complainant was on 25/1/1994. Opposite parties did not challenge the affidavit of the complainant nor did opposite parties file affidavit or documents. Hence the affidavit of the complainant remains uncontroverted. As per Ext.P1 complainant is seen remitted water charge till 10/1997. As per provisions of the Water Supply Regulations, the actual amount due will be ascertained on reading the meter and necessary adjustment bill showing amounts due to/from the consumer will be sent once in six months. The case of the complainant is that no adjustment bill was served during the past five years (from 1997) and that the monthly payment as per the invoice card (Ext.P1) would subsist. There is no plea in the version that opposite parties had served the adjustment bill to the complainant during the said period.
6. Ext.P2 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 31/12/2001 wherein it is stated consumer class is non-domestic, status of the meter is not working, average consumption is 98kl., monthly charge is Rs.879/- and arrears upto 11/2001 is Rs.1,11,593/-. It is pleaded in the version that complainant had used water unauthorisedly for construction purpose, without intimating and getting prior sanction from the opposite parties and that the said connection had been treated under non-domestic category from 10/96 onwards based on report of unauthorised usage of water for construction purpose. Opposite parties did not file the said report nor did opposite parties attempt to examine the reporter, nor did opposite parties file affidavit to controvert the affidavit of the complainant. The initial onus of proving the unauthorised use of water by the complainant would rest on the persons who raise such allegation. No evidence from the opposite parties either documentary or oral. Hence the categorisation under non-domestic category is devoid of bonafides. In the version it is stated that water meter attached was found 20% fast as per test certificate, and further that the said meter went out of order after recording 7186kl. There is no material on record to substantiate this. Mere plea in the version without cogent, relevant and convincing evidence would not stand. As per version, meter readings were taken on 10/2/1991, 9/8/1991, 11/3/1992, 11/7/1997, 12/7/1994, 9/5/1995 & 8/95. If adjustment bills were issued immediately after the each reading, it would not saddle the 'consumer'. Non-delivery of adjustment bill in time would definitely against the provisions 13 of the Regulation. It is further to be mentioned that the coversion of consumer class from domestic to non-domestic is without any reasons and without knowledge and consent of the complainant. Coversion of consumer class lacks bonafides.
7. In the absence of any evidence in support of the version, we are inclined to adopt the affidavit of the complainant. Submission by the complainant is that as per order dated 12/7/2002 the connection was restored by opposite parties on receipt of Rs.40,000/- as interim payment from the complainant. Ext.P3 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 31/3/2002 for Rs.1,21,114/-. In Ext.P2 also status of the meter is not working. Ext.P5 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 18/8/2003 for Rs.1,66,862/- wherein the status of the meter mentioned is not working and consumer class is non-domestic. In all the bills (Ext.P2,P3 & P5) the status of the meter is 'not working' and consumer class is non-domestic. The amounts mentioned in Ext.P2,P3 & P5 are without any basis and hence the said bills deserves to be cancelled. Opposite parties had received Rs.40,000/- as interim payment as per order dated 12/7/2002 and restored connection accordingly. The order dated 12/7/2002 deserves to be made absolute. Meter status is 'not working' and assessment of water charge on the basis of non working meter under non-domestic class would not ensure equity and justice. Water consumed by the complainant was not assessed as per the provision of the Water Supply Regulations. Taking into consideration of the totality of circumstances we think justice will be well met if water charge is assessed on the basis of average consumption of water for 3 months on installation of a new water meter. Non-issuance of adjustment bill in time would definitely amount to deficiency in service.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The consumer bills (Exts.P2,P3 & P5) issued by opposite parties are hereby cancelled. Opposite parties shall permit the complainant to install a new water meter. On installation of new water meter, opposite parties shall assess water charge on the basis of average consumption for 3 months retrospectively for the whole period from 11/1997 onwards under domestic category, on the basis of which opposite parties shall raise fresh consumer bill after adjusting the amounts already remitted by the complainant after the filing of the complaint (after 3/7/2002). 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 28th day of February, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.280/2002 APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness: NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of provisional invoice card of consumer No.MD 7173 P2 : " consumer bill dated 31/12/2001 of bill No.KWA/MD/Jan/2002/-303 P3 : " dated 31/03/2002 of bill No.KWA/MD/Apr/2002/- 126 P4 : Copy of letter issued to the opposite parties.
Opposite parties' witness: NIL
Opposite parties' documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
