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: 178/2003 Filed on 30/4/2003 Dated : 28..02..2009 Complainant: R. Sarasamma, TC.No.9/1362, Mulluvila Veedu, Pippinmoodu, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S. Renganathan) Opposite parties:
Kerala Water Authority, represented by the Managing Director, Jala Bhavan, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. The Executive Engineer, KWA ..do... The Assistant Executive Engineer, KWA, North Sub Division, Kowdiar, Tvpm. The Assistant Engineer, KWA., North Sub Division, Kowdiar, Tvpm.
(By Adv. Santhamma Thomas)
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 17/8/2004, 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 11..02..2009, the Forum on 28..02..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant who is a consumer of the Kerala Water Authority has been provided with a domestic connection 30 years back during the lifetime of her father, Sri. P. Narayana Pillai. Her father died and the complainant is continuing as the consumer of the opposite parties. The monthly water charge fixed by the opposite parties is Rs.37/-. As directed by the opposite parties, the arrears of water charges from October 1999 to March 2000 amounting to Rs.2,361/- has been remitted by the complainant vide receipt dated 9/3/2000 and thereafter the water meter was replaced as per the direction of the opposite parties and a new meter was installed. Thereafter, the complainant was regularly and promptly remitting the water charges. On 13/2/2002 the complainant had remitted an amount of Rs. 667/- towards water charges from November 2001 to July 2002 and on 16/10/2002 Rs.370/- was remitted towards water charges for a period from August 2002 to December 2002. But on 9/12/2002 the opposite parties issued a notice wherein Rs.5,905/- has been demanded from the complainant as arrears of water charges. The said notice is incomplete and prepared in a slip shod manner and it is invalid. Immediately on receipt of the same, the complainant had given a complaint in writing to the opposite parties stating that no water charge is in arrears. The complainant thereafter remitted Rs.438/- towards water charges for the months from January 2003 to June 2003. But the complainant again received another bill dated 8/4/2003 whereby she has been asked to remit Rs.6,471/- as alleged arrears of water charges for the period from 26/11/2002 to March 2003, this according to the complainant is arbitrary and erroneous. The alleged arrears of water charge is billed for the quantity which the complainant had not actually consumed. These bills issued are the results of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint for setting aside the bills dated 5/12/2002 & 8/4/2003 and for compensation and costs.
2. The opposite parties have filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. The water connection is still in the name of Sri. P. Narayana Pillai and after his death, the connection has not been transferred in the name of the legal heirs. The Provisional Invoice Card was issued with a condition that it is only provisional subject to actual reading. As per the reading the consumption exceeded the PIC amount and a cumulative arrear bill has been issued. The complainant was regularly paying Rs.71/- per month. The arrear bill was issued as per the meter reading which includes the excess quantity consumed over the average PIC quantity for which the consumer was paying. The arrears mentioned is correct and based on actual meter reading. As per the meter reading the complainant has consumed the said quantity. There is no deficiency in service as water was supplied without interruption and arrear bill is served when meter readings are available. Hence pray for dismissal of the complaint.
3.Complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. P1 to P7. 4th opposite party has filed affidavit and no documents were marked on their side.
4. The issues that would arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is liable to make the payments demanded vide Exts.P5 & P7? Reliefs and costs?
5. Points (i) & (ii) : The complainant has pleaded that she has been paying the monthly water charges at Rs.37/- as per PIC and the complainant had paid Rs.2,361/- for the period from October '99 to March 2000. Thereafter the meter has been replaced by new one on 9/3/2000. The original consumer Sri. Narayana Pillai is no more and the consumer connection is still in his name. But the complainant has pleaded that she has been paying the water charges. Hence she is to be considered as a beneficiary of service and on that technical aspect the complainant should not be made to suffer.
6. From the records it is revealed that the complainant has been paying the water charges regularly and somewhat in advance also. Ext.P2 shows that the complainant has remitted an amount of Rs.2,369/- on 9/3/2000 towads water charges for the months from 10/98 to 3/2000, Ext.P3 proves remittance of Rs.667/- towards water charges from 11/2001 to 7/2002 and Ext. P4 proves payment of Rs.370/- for a period from 8/2002 to 12/2002. The complainant has alleged that on 9/3/2000 the water meter has been replaced which can only be done if there is no dues. The opposite parties have not objected the same. Now that the complainant has alleged that there is no arrears and the opposite parties have issued Ext.P5 notice demanding Rs.5,905/- without any basis. On a perusal of Ext.P5 dated 5/12/2002 the opposite parties have made a demand of Rs.5,905/- from the consumer. The period for which the above amount has been claimed is not mentioned and is incomplete also. The opposite parties have demanded water charges upto 11/2002 but from which period has been left blank. So on what basis the opposite parties have calculated the above amount of Rs.5,905/- is ambiguous. The opposite parties have not produced any records to prove their contention.
7. The opposite parties have agreed that the complainant was regularly paying the monthly charges and the arrear bill has been issued as per the meter reading which includes the excess quantity consumed over the average PIC quantity for which the consumer was paying. But on a perusal of Ext.P7, closing meter reading, opening meter reading quantity consumed are left blank. The amount has been claimed for a period from 26/11/2002 to 3/2003, which has been calculated at Rs.6,471/-. The monthly charges as per Ext.P7 is seen as Rs.246/-. In the version the opposite parties have agreed that the complainant is regularly paying at the rate of Rs.71/- per month. But as per Ext.P7 monthly charges are recorded as Rs.246/-. How they have arrived at this amount has not been supported with any evidence.
8.From the documents it is found that the complainant has not remitted the water chargs for the period from 4/2000 to 10/2001. There is no documents on record to show the payment of the same by the complainant. The opposite parties have contended that the actual consumption as per meter reading as follows: From the date of meter charging upto 5/00 - 58.5KL @ Rs.242/- 10/00 - 56.7KL @ Rs.229/- 12/00 - 63.1KL @ Rs.276/- 8/01 - 63 KL @ Rs.276/- 11/02 - 5807KL @ Rs.244 But the opposite parties have not produced any document proving the basis of their calculation. There is no evidence adduced by the opposite parties with regard to the meter reading and excess consumption if any by the complainant.
9. In the light of the discussions it is found that due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has been issued with Exts.P5 & P7 bills which we find that the complainant is not liable to pay.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and Exts.P5 & P7 bills are quashed. The opposite parties are at liberty to raise fresh bills, for the dues if any, to the complainant after deducting the amount if any paid by the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to compensation and 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, on this the 28th day of February, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No.178/2003
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness: NIL
Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of payment schedule dated21/10/1998
P2 : Photocopy of receipt No.L-012284 dated 9/03/2000 for Rs. 2,361/- consumer No.KDR/4025/D
P3 : " No.075128 dated 13/2/2002 for Rs. 667/-
P4 : " receipt No.TVPM/21016/14/350558 dated 16/10/02 for Rs.370/- P5 : " notice (original) No.Rev/12/02/s dated 5/12/2002 of con.No.KDR-4025/D P6 : " receipt No.TVPM/30210/4-292023 dated 10/2/2003 for Rs.438/-.
P7 : " consumer bill No.KWA/KDR/Apr/2003/-63 dated 8/4/2003 for Rs.6471/-.
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: 178/2003 Filed on 30/4/2003 Dated : 28..02..2009 Complainant: R. Sarasamma, TC.No.9/1362, Mulluvila Veedu, Pippinmoodu, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S. Renganathan) Opposite parties:
Kerala Water Authority, represented by the Managing Director, Jala Bhavan, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. The Executive Engineer, KWA ..do... The Assistant Executive Engineer, KWA, North Sub Division, Kowdiar, Tvpm. The Assistant Engineer, KWA., North Sub Division, Kowdiar, Tvpm.
(By Adv. Santhamma Thomas)
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 17/8/2004, 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 11..02..2009, the Forum on 28..02..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant who is a consumer of the Kerala Water Authority has been provided with a domestic connection 30 years back during the lifetime of her father, Sri. P. Narayana Pillai. Her father died and the complainant is continuing as the consumer of the opposite parties. The monthly water charge fixed by the opposite parties is Rs.37/-. As directed by the opposite parties, the arrears of water charges from October 1999 to March 2000 amounting to Rs.2,361/- has been remitted by the complainant vide receipt dated 9/3/2000 and thereafter the water meter was replaced as per the direction of the opposite parties and a new meter was installed. Thereafter, the complainant was regularly and promptly remitting the water charges. On 13/2/2002 the complainant had remitted an amount of Rs. 667/- towards water charges from November 2001 to July 2002 and on 16/10/2002 Rs.370/- was remitted towards water charges for a period from August 2002 to December 2002. But on 9/12/2002 the opposite parties issued a notice wherein Rs.5,905/- has been demanded from the complainant as arrears of water charges. The said notice is incomplete and prepared in a slip shod manner and it is invalid. Immediately on receipt of the same, the complainant had given a complaint in writing to the opposite parties stating that no water charge is in arrears. The complainant thereafter remitted Rs.438/- towards water charges for the months from January 2003 to June 2003. But the complainant again received another bill dated 8/4/2003 whereby she has been asked to remit Rs.6,471/- as alleged arrears of water charges for the period from 26/11/2002 to March 2003, this according to the complainant is arbitrary and erroneous. The alleged arrears of water charge is billed for the quantity which the complainant had not actually consumed. These bills issued are the results of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint for setting aside the bills dated 5/12/2002 & 8/4/2003 and for compensation and costs.
2. The opposite parties have filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. The water connection is still in the name of Sri. P. Narayana Pillai and after his death, the connection has not been transferred in the name of the legal heirs. The Provisional Invoice Card was issued with a condition that it is only provisional subject to actual reading. As per the reading the consumption exceeded the PIC amount and a cumulative arrear bill has been issued. The complainant was regularly paying Rs.71/- per month. The arrear bill was issued as per the meter reading which includes the excess quantity consumed over the average PIC quantity for which the consumer was paying. The arrears mentioned is correct and based on actual meter reading. As per the meter reading the complainant has consumed the said quantity. There is no deficiency in service as water was supplied without interruption and arrear bill is served when meter readings are available. Hence pray for dismissal of the complaint.
3.Complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. P1 to P7. 4th opposite party has filed affidavit and no documents were marked on their side.
4. The issues that would arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is liable to make the payments demanded vide Exts.P5 & P7? Reliefs and costs?
5. Points (i) & (ii) : The complainant has pleaded that she has been paying the monthly water charges at Rs.37/- as per PIC and the complainant had paid Rs.2,361/- for the period from October '99 to March 2000. Thereafter the meter has been replaced by new one on 9/3/2000. The original consumer Sri. Narayana Pillai is no more and the consumer connection is still in his name. But the complainant has pleaded that she has been paying the water charges. Hence she is to be considered as a beneficiary of service and on that technical aspect the complainant should not be made to suffer.
6. From the records it is revealed that the complainant has been paying the water charges regularly and somewhat in advance also. Ext.P2 shows that the complainant has remitted an amount of Rs.2,369/- on 9/3/2000 towads water charges for the months from 10/98 to 3/2000, Ext.P3 proves remittance of Rs.667/- towards water charges from 11/2001 to 7/2002 and Ext. P4 proves payment of Rs.370/- for a period from 8/2002 to 12/2002. The complainant has alleged that on 9/3/2000 the water meter has been replaced which can only be done if there is no dues. The opposite parties have not objected the same. Now that the complainant has alleged that there is no arrears and the opposite parties have issued Ext.P5 notice demanding Rs.5,905/- without any basis. On a perusal of Ext.P5 dated 5/12/2002 the opposite parties have made a demand of Rs.5,905/- from the consumer. The period for which the above amount has been claimed is not mentioned and is incomplete also. The opposite parties have demanded water charges upto 11/2002 but from which period has been left blank. So on what basis the opposite parties have calculated the above amount of Rs.5,905/- is ambiguous. The opposite parties have not produced any records to prove their contention.
7. The opposite parties have agreed that the complainant was regularly paying the monthly charges and the arrear bill has been issued as per the meter reading which includes the excess quantity consumed over the average PIC quantity for which the consumer was paying. But on a perusal of Ext.P7, closing meter reading, opening meter reading quantity consumed are left blank. The amount has been claimed for a period from 26/11/2002 to 3/2003, which has been calculated at Rs.6,471/-. The monthly charges as per Ext.P7 is seen as Rs.246/-. In the version the opposite parties have agreed that the complainant is regularly paying at the rate of Rs.71/- per month. But as per Ext.P7 monthly charges are recorded as Rs.246/-. How they have arrived at this amount has not been supported with any evidence.
8.From the documents it is found that the complainant has not remitted the water chargs for the period from 4/2000 to 10/2001. There is no documents on record to show the payment of the same by the complainant. The opposite parties have contended that the actual consumption as per meter reading as follows: From the date of meter charging upto 5/00 - 58.5KL @ Rs.242/- 10/00 - 56.7KL @ Rs.229/- 12/00 - 63.1KL @ Rs.276/- 8/01 - 63 KL @ Rs.276/- 11/02 - 5807KL @ Rs.244 But the opposite parties have not produced any document proving the basis of their calculation. There is no evidence adduced by the opposite parties with regard to the meter reading and excess consumption if any by the complainant.
9. In the light of the discussions it is found that due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has been issued with Exts.P5 & P7 bills which we find that the complainant is not liable to pay.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and Exts.P5 & P7 bills are quashed. The opposite parties are at liberty to raise fresh bills, for the dues if any, to the complainant after deducting the amount if any paid by the complainant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to compensation and 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, on this the 28th day of February, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No.178/2003
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness: NIL
Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of payment schedule dated21/10/1998
P2 : Photocopy of receipt No.L-012284 dated 9/03/2000 for Rs. 2,361/- consumer No.KDR/4025/D
P3 : " No.075128 dated 13/2/2002 for Rs. 667/-
P4 : " receipt No.TVPM/21016/14/350558 dated 16/10/02 for Rs.370/- P5 : " notice (original) No.Rev/12/02/s dated 5/12/2002 of con.No.KDR-4025/D P6 : " receipt No.TVPM/30210/4-292023 dated 10/2/2003 for Rs.438/-.
P7 : " consumer bill No.KWA/KDR/Apr/2003/-63 dated 8/4/2003 for Rs.6471/-.
Opposite parties' witness: NIL
Opposite parties documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
