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. 464/2002 Filed on 05/11/2002 Dated: 15..07..2009 Complainant: K. Sisupalan, Krishna Bhavan, Karumkulam, Puthiyathura- P.O. (By Adv. S. Unnikrishnan)
Opposite parties: The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Executive Engineer, KWA Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kanjiramkulam.
(By Adv. C. Sasidharan Pillai)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 22/01/2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..05..2009, the Forum on 15..07..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 the opposite parties vide consumer No.KRP 942, that complainant gets water only twice in a week, that major portion of domestic use is availed from the spring well attached with the complainant's house and the consumption of water from opposite party is very low, that at the time of connection the initial reading of the meter was 850 litre, that complainant was regular in paying water charges till December 1999, that initially the monthly charge was Rs.33/-, subsequently it rose to Rs.40/-, that due to personal inconvenience the complainant could not continue the payment, that on 10/12/2001 the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party's office and demanded to prepare the arrear bill, but opposite party did not care it. On 20/9/2002 opposite party issued a bill demanding a sum of Rs.7,271/- being the arrears upto September 2002. Complainant was directed by opposite parties to pay the said amount in 7 installments, that the calculation made in the said bill is by mistake, and there is error in the arrear bill. Hence this complaint to order that complainant is not liable to pay water supply charges as per bill dated 20/9/2002 or to direct the opposite parties to calculate water charges at the rate of Rs.40/- per month from 1/2000 to 9/2002 and to pay compensation and cost. 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that monthly charge was provisionally fixed at Rs.33/- for the consumption of 16kl per month, that later the water tariff was revised with effect from 4/99 and monthly charge was provisionally fixed at Rs.40/-, that the consumer had remitted only an amount of Rs.525/- upto 12/1999, that thereafter the complainant has not remitted any amount till date. An additional bill was issued to the complainant amounting to Rs.7,271/- on 20/9/2002, that the said bill was prepared as per meter reading and after necessary deductions, and that there is no misappropriation in this case. The complainant is liable to pay the arrear of water charges from 11/98 to 9/2002 since the amount is for the actual consumption of water. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per bill dated 20/9/2002? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked. In rebuttal, 2nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not furnish any documents. 5. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.KRP/942. It has been the case of the complainant that the complainant gets water only twice in a week, that the water connection was given to the complainant on 11/11/1998 and at that time the initial reading of the meter was 850 litre, that the complainant was regular in paying water charge till December 1999. Submission by the complainant is that initially, monthly charge was Rs.33/-, which rose to Rs.40/- from 4/99 onwards, and that the said amount was remitted till 12/99 and thereafter he could not continue the payment and that on 20/9/2002 complainant received a bill from the 2nd opposite party for Rs.7,271/-, Ext.P1 is the copy of the complainant's meter card. As per Ext.P1 the date of connection was on 11/11/1998, consumer No. is KRP 942, and initial reading was 850 litre, thereafter timely meter reading is not seen taken by the opposite parties, on 24/4/2002, meter reading is seen recorded which would come to 1990 kl. Ext.P2 is the copy of the Provisional Invoice Card. As per Ext.P2, initially the monthly amount to be remitted was Rs.33/-, which rose to 40/month which further rose to Rs.167/month and the arrears mentioned therein come to Rs.7,271/- upto 9/2002. The connection comes under domestic category. As per payment schedule printed overleaf of the Ext.P2 it is seen that complainant had remitted Rs.33/- per month from 1/98 to 3/99 and Rs.40/month from 4/99 to 12/99. It is to be noted from the Ext. P2 that the amount indicated for monthly payment is only provisional. The actual amount due will be ascertained on reading the meter and necessary adjustment bill showing amounts due to will be sent to the complainant once in six months. Ext.P3 is the copy of the meter reading bill issued by the 2nd opposite party for Rs.7,271/-. As per Ext.P3, it is seen stated that arrears due from 11/98 to 9/2000. Ext.P4 series include copies of receipts issued by the 2nd opposite party from 11/98 to 12/99. In this context it is to be mentioned that opposite party has revised the monthly rate from Rs.33/- per month to Rs.40/- per month and to Rs.167/- per month, while meter reading was taken only on 24/4/2002. Opposite parties did not act as per the provision relating to the Water Supply Regulations. It is mandatory on the part of opposite parties to ascertain amount on the basis of meter reading and issue adjustment bills if any to the consumer once in six months, complainant has remitted water charges as per Ext.P2 Provisional Invoice Card upto 12/99. Complainant has never challenged the meter reading. There is no case on the part of the complainant that the water meter is faulty. Hence the reading stated in Ext.P1 consumer's meter card stands unchallenged. As per Ext.P1, meter reading as on 24/4/2002 comes to 1990 kl. It is to be noted that the initial meter reading as on 11/11/98 was 850 litre (approximately 1 Kl). Thus from 11/11/98 to 24/4/2002, for 47 months, consumption of water comes to 1990 kl. The average consumption comes to 1990/47 = 42kl. As per Ext.P3 meter reading bill dated 20/4/2002, some amount (Rs.160/-) is seen charged under penalty and fine. Since timely bill was not served to the complainant, opposite parties cannot claim the said amount under penalty and fine from the complainant. Since there was no default in payment of water charge upto 12/99. During the said period no prior adjustment bill was seen issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Opposite party has not acted as per the provision of the Water Supply Act. Issuance of the bill for the whole period would saddle the complainant. Complainant is exonerated from the liability to pay any arrears upto 12/99. Complainant is liable to pay water charge from 1/2000 to 20/9/2002 as per Ext.P3 bill at 42kl per month. Complainant is not liable to pay penalty and fine during the said period since timely bill was not issued to complainant by the opposite parties. Deficiency in service proved. Though adjustment bill was not issued, complainant has a liability to remit the water charge as per Provisional Invoice Card. In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Complainant is exonerated from the liability to pay arrear water charges if any upto 12/99. Ext.P3 bill is hereby quashed. Complainant shall remit water charge for 42kl per month from 1/2000 to 20/9/2002. Opposite parties shall raise fresh bill for consumption of water at 42 kl per month from 1/2000 to 20/9/2002. Complainant shall remit the new bill amount in 5 equal monthly installments commencing from date of issuance of the bill. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Both parties shall bear and suffer their costs. 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 July, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.464/2002 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Copy of consumer meter card of con.No.KRP-942 dated 24/4/2002 P2 : Copy of payment schedule dated from 11/11/98 to 22/12/99 P3 : Copy of meter reading bill dated 20/9/2002 P4 : Copy of receipt dated 11/11/98 issued by opp. Party. P4(a) : " dated 4/12/98 " (b) : " dated 6/1/99 " (c) : " dated 6/2/99 " (d) : " dated5/3/99 " (e) : " dated 7/6/99 " (f) : " dated 6/7/99 " (g) : " dated 8/9/99 " (h) : " dated 6/10/99 " (i) : " dated 22/12/99 "
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. 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. 464/2002 Filed on 05/11/2002 Dated: 15..07..2009 Complainant: K. Sisupalan, Krishna Bhavan, Karumkulam, Puthiyathura- P.O. (By Adv. S. Unnikrishnan)
Opposite parties: The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Executive Engineer, KWA Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kanjiramkulam.
(By Adv. C. Sasidharan Pillai)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 22/01/2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..05..2009, the Forum on 15..07..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 the opposite parties vide consumer No.KRP 942, that complainant gets water only twice in a week, that major portion of domestic use is availed from the spring well attached with the complainant's house and the consumption of water from opposite party is very low, that at the time of connection the initial reading of the meter was 850 litre, that complainant was regular in paying water charges till December 1999, that initially the monthly charge was Rs.33/-, subsequently it rose to Rs.40/-, that due to personal inconvenience the complainant could not continue the payment, that on 10/12/2001 the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party's office and demanded to prepare the arrear bill, but opposite party did not care it. On 20/9/2002 opposite party issued a bill demanding a sum of Rs.7,271/- being the arrears upto September 2002. Complainant was directed by opposite parties to pay the said amount in 7 installments, that the calculation made in the said bill is by mistake, and there is error in the arrear bill. Hence this complaint to order that complainant is not liable to pay water supply charges as per bill dated 20/9/2002 or to direct the opposite parties to calculate water charges at the rate of Rs.40/- per month from 1/2000 to 9/2002 and to pay compensation and cost. 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that monthly charge was provisionally fixed at Rs.33/- for the consumption of 16kl per month, that later the water tariff was revised with effect from 4/99 and monthly charge was provisionally fixed at Rs.40/-, that the consumer had remitted only an amount of Rs.525/- upto 12/1999, that thereafter the complainant has not remitted any amount till date. An additional bill was issued to the complainant amounting to Rs.7,271/- on 20/9/2002, that the said bill was prepared as per meter reading and after necessary deductions, and that there is no misappropriation in this case. The complainant is liable to pay the arrear of water charges from 11/98 to 9/2002 since the amount is for the actual consumption of water. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per bill dated 20/9/2002? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked. In rebuttal, 2nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not furnish any documents. 5. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.KRP/942. It has been the case of the complainant that the complainant gets water only twice in a week, that the water connection was given to the complainant on 11/11/1998 and at that time the initial reading of the meter was 850 litre, that the complainant was regular in paying water charge till December 1999. Submission by the complainant is that initially, monthly charge was Rs.33/-, which rose to Rs.40/- from 4/99 onwards, and that the said amount was remitted till 12/99 and thereafter he could not continue the payment and that on 20/9/2002 complainant received a bill from the 2nd opposite party for Rs.7,271/-, Ext.P1 is the copy of the complainant's meter card. As per Ext.P1 the date of connection was on 11/11/1998, consumer No. is KRP 942, and initial reading was 850 litre, thereafter timely meter reading is not seen taken by the opposite parties, on 24/4/2002, meter reading is seen recorded which would come to 1990 kl. Ext.P2 is the copy of the Provisional Invoice Card. As per Ext.P2, initially the monthly amount to be remitted was Rs.33/-, which rose to 40/month which further rose to Rs.167/month and the arrears mentioned therein come to Rs.7,271/- upto 9/2002. The connection comes under domestic category. As per payment schedule printed overleaf of the Ext.P2 it is seen that complainant had remitted Rs.33/- per month from 1/98 to 3/99 and Rs.40/month from 4/99 to 12/99. It is to be noted from the Ext. P2 that the amount indicated for monthly payment is only provisional. The actual amount due will be ascertained on reading the meter and necessary adjustment bill showing amounts due to will be sent to the complainant once in six months. Ext.P3 is the copy of the meter reading bill issued by the 2nd opposite party for Rs.7,271/-. As per Ext.P3, it is seen stated that arrears due from 11/98 to 9/2000. Ext.P4 series include copies of receipts issued by the 2nd opposite party from 11/98 to 12/99. In this context it is to be mentioned that opposite party has revised the monthly rate from Rs.33/- per month to Rs.40/- per month and to Rs.167/- per month, while meter reading was taken only on 24/4/2002. Opposite parties did not act as per the provision relating to the Water Supply Regulations. It is mandatory on the part of opposite parties to ascertain amount on the basis of meter reading and issue adjustment bills if any to the consumer once in six months, complainant has remitted water charges as per Ext.P2 Provisional Invoice Card upto 12/99. Complainant has never challenged the meter reading. There is no case on the part of the complainant that the water meter is faulty. Hence the reading stated in Ext.P1 consumer's meter card stands unchallenged. As per Ext.P1, meter reading as on 24/4/2002 comes to 1990 kl. It is to be noted that the initial meter reading as on 11/11/98 was 850 litre (approximately 1 Kl). Thus from 11/11/98 to 24/4/2002, for 47 months, consumption of water comes to 1990 kl. The average consumption comes to 1990/47 = 42kl. As per Ext.P3 meter reading bill dated 20/4/2002, some amount (Rs.160/-) is seen charged under penalty and fine. Since timely bill was not served to the complainant, opposite parties cannot claim the said amount under penalty and fine from the complainant. Since there was no default in payment of water charge upto 12/99. During the said period no prior adjustment bill was seen issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Opposite party has not acted as per the provision of the Water Supply Act. Issuance of the bill for the whole period would saddle the complainant. Complainant is exonerated from the liability to pay any arrears upto 12/99. Complainant is liable to pay water charge from 1/2000 to 20/9/2002 as per Ext.P3 bill at 42kl per month. Complainant is not liable to pay penalty and fine during the said period since timely bill was not issued to complainant by the opposite parties. Deficiency in service proved. Though adjustment bill was not issued, complainant has a liability to remit the water charge as per Provisional Invoice Card. In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Complainant is exonerated from the liability to pay arrear water charges if any upto 12/99. Ext.P3 bill is hereby quashed. Complainant shall remit water charge for 42kl per month from 1/2000 to 20/9/2002. Opposite parties shall raise fresh bill for consumption of water at 42 kl per month from 1/2000 to 20/9/2002. Complainant shall remit the new bill amount in 5 equal monthly installments commencing from date of issuance of the bill. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Both parties shall bear and suffer their costs. 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 July, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.464/2002 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Copy of consumer meter card of con.No.KRP-942 dated 24/4/2002 P2 : Copy of payment schedule dated from 11/11/98 to 22/12/99 P3 : Copy of meter reading bill dated 20/9/2002 P4 : Copy of receipt dated 11/11/98 issued by opp. Party. P4(a) : " dated 4/12/98 " (b) : " dated 6/1/99 " (c) : " dated 6/2/99 " (d) : " dated5/3/99 " (e) : " dated 7/6/99 " (f) : " dated 6/7/99 " (g) : " dated 8/9/99 " (h) : " dated 6/10/99 " (i) : " dated 22/12/99 "
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
