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. 78(A)/2004 Filed on 13/2/2004 Dated: 30..06..2010 Complainant: S. Sathiavageeswaran, Chartered Accountant, T.C.20/1600, Sastri Nagar, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram – 2. (By Adv. S. Sankaranarayana Iyer) Opposite parties:
Managing Director, K.W.A, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. Executive Engineer, P.H. Division, Thiruvananthapuram. Assistant Engineer, East Sub Division, P.T.P Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram. Assistant Engineer, K.W.A., Water Works Section, Karamana.
(By Advs. Santhamma Thomas & P. Dileepkhan)
This O.P having been heard on 27..02..2010, the Forum on 30..06..2010 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.1815 D, that he has been paying water charges at the rate of Rs. 21/- from 1/9/93 to 31/12/2002 as per Provisional Invoice Card issued by opposite parties, that opposite parties directed him to remit Rs. 721.50 as final charges for the period upto 8/93 and the same was remitted along with the slab rate amount for 9/93, since then no meter reading was ever taken and there was no direction to remit final charges till 5/9/02, that at the time of introducing slab system opposite party had issued a notification wherein it was stated that the slab system was being introduced for the East Sub Division as an experimental measure and the reading will be taken once in 6 months and adjustment bills will be issued for the actual water consumed during the period, that it was also assured that Meter Service Stations will be introduced to check the meters periodically and to ascertain whether a meter is working satisfactorily, that on 5/08/02 an official of the opposite party came to inspect the meter and informed him that the meter was not working, that immediately he purchased a new meter and installed the same with consent of the opposite party, that on 5/9/02 opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 14,321/- as water charges for the period from 1/10/94 to 31/7/02, that in the said bill calculations were made on the basis of average consumption rate for 53.2kl (ie. Rs.173/- per month), that immediately he filed objection to the bill and requested the authorities to withdraw the same. Subsequently opposite party issued bills dated 20/8/2003 for Rs.16,853/- and dated 10/10/03 for Rs. 17,275/-, that for the said bills he filed objections, that thereafter opposite party served another notice to him on 18/11/03 to remit Rs. 16,486/- wherein there was threat of disconnection to which complainant filed objection on 28/11/03. Opposite party sent a reply dated 23/01/2002 intimating that the water charges have been calculated on the basis of meter readings and admitting that the meter was replaced on 5/8/2002. It is further submitted by the complainant that the calculations made by opposite parties are not according to the orders issued by this Forum in O.P. 80/2001 dated 26/5/2003. Hence this complaint to declare that complainant is liable to pay water charges only from 6/8/99 on the basis of average consumption for 3 months from 5/8/02, to direct opposite parties to calculate amount on the basis of the schedule of rates ordered in G.O(MS)No.20/99 dated 23/3/1999 and to restrain OP from disconnecting the water connection till final disposal of the complaint. 2. Opposite parties filed version contending that opposite parties denied the averments stating that the rate of Rs. 21/- per month noted in the Provisional Invoice Card is based on the consumption upto June 1993, that the slab rate indicated in the invoice card is only provisional and is to be re-assessed based on actual consumption, that after 1993 on various occasions meter readings were taken, that on 31/10/94 the meter readings was 2547kl, that on 25/6/97 meter reading was 4099kl, that on 1/10/2000 the meter reading was 5708kl and that the meter was found to be not working on 15/5/2002 and the reading was 5701kl. It is further averred in the version that the amount due upto 1993 of Rs. 721.50 paid by the complainant has been calculated from actual consumption of water upto 1993 and the provisional amount for the next 2 months assessed after meter reading on June 1993, that after that meter rreading was taken on October 1994 based on which the amount was revised with effect from July 1993. It is true that a new meter has been installed, and bill was issued for Rs.14,321/- but no objections were tendered by the complainant. It is further submitted by opposite parties that the Order of this Forum in O.P.80/2001 has no precedential value, that complainant is not a party to the proceedings in O.P 80/2001, that the issues relating to O.P 80/2001 was settled by an Adalat conducted by opposite parties with the Residents Association, Sastri Nagar. The principle of limitation is not applicable as regular bills has been sent to the complainant. This complaint is filed to escape the payment and to stall the disconnection. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The points that arise for consideration are: Whether complainant is liable to pay water charges as per bill dated 5/9/2002 and subsequent bills issued thereafter? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P11. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed counter affidavit and has marked Ext. D1. 4. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. 1815 D and complainant had remitted dues upto August 1993. The very case of the complainant is that opposite parties issued excess bill dated 5/9/02 for Rs. 14,321/- on the basis of calculation at a flat rate of Rs. 173/- per month from 1/10/94 to 31/7/02 without giving credit to the amounts remitted by the complainant for the period upto 31/12/2002 pursuant to the Provisional Invoice Card. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that in a case filed by the President of the Sastri Nagar Association as O.P 80/01 in his representative capacity for and on behalf of the members of the Society this Forum has passed an Order that complainant is a member of the said Association as such the decision of the Forum is applicable to this complaint also. It is argued by the complainant that the very contention of the opposite parties in their version that readings were taken on 31/10/94, 25/6/97 & 1/10/2000 is not correct that no bills were issued based on the said readings said to have been taken on different occassions. It is further argued by the complainant that the amount on the basis of Provisional Invoice Card was remitted for the period upto 31/12/2002, but in the bill sent on 5/8/2002, no credit has been given for the amount remitted. Ext. P1 series consist of Provisional Invoice Card and 3 receipts dated 24/12/2001 for Rs.321/-, 1/1/2000 for Rs. 356/- and 24/12/2000 for Rs. 321/-. As per Ext. P1 Provisional Invoice Card the monthly amount to be remitted is Rs.21/- from 9/93 which is seen enhanced to Rs.28/- from 6/99. It is further to be noted that the arrears of Rs. 725.50 due upto 8/93 and connection is under domestic category. On perusal of payment schedule printed overleaf of Ext.P1 it is seen that complainant remitted Rs.741.50 upto 9/93, thereafter it is seen that complainant has remitted water charges as per PIC upto December 2000. Ext.P2 series include a consumer bill dated 5/8/02 for Rs.14,321/- and a copy of the letter addressed to Assistant Executive Engineer, Karamana Section dated 10/9/2002 issued by the complainant. On perusal of Ext.P2 consumer bill it is seen that opening meter reading is 2547kl and closing meter reading is 5708kl and quantity consumed is 3161, average consumption from 31/10/94 to 1/1/2000 is recorded as 53.2kl. Accordingly the monthly charge calculated is Rs.175/-.Ext.P2 bill is seen challenged by the complainant by Ext.P2(a) letter. Ext.P3 series include a bill dated 20/8/2003 for Rs.16,853/- in which the present reading recorded is 5708kl and previous reading recorded is 4099kl, average consumption is recorded as 53.2kl. Ext.P3 bill dated 20/08/2003 is seen challenged by Ext.P3(a) letter addressed to the Assistant Executive Engineer by the complainant. Ext.P3(b) is a bill dated 18/10/2003 for Rs. 17,275/-. As per Ext.P3(b) present meter reading is 517kl and previous meter reading is 433kl and average consumption recorded is 53.2kl. The said bill is also seen challenged by Ext.P3(c) letter dated 8/11/2003. Ext.P4 series consist of a reply with reference to the letter dated 8/11/2003 [Ext.P3(c)] requesting the complainant to clear the complete dues to prevent disconnection of water supply. It is further stated in Ext.P4 reply that on inspection by the Assistant Engineer, Karamana Section at site it has been found that the said consumer No.is used for non domestic purpose and hence the said connection converted to non domestic with immediate effect. Ext.P4(a) is the notice dated 19/11/2003 issued by opposite parties. Ext.P4(b) is the copy of the letter in connection with Ext.P4(a) notice addressed to Assistant Executive Engineer by the complainant. Ext.P4(c) is a copy of another letter dated 28/11/2003 sent by the complainant to Assistant Executive Engineer. Ext.P4(d) is the acknowledgment card. Ext.P5 is a statement showing details of meter readings furnished by Executive Engineer. On perusal of Ext.P5 it is seen stated that consumption through out the period from 94 to 2003 varied from 38kl to 53kl, that complainant has remitted water charges at the rate of 12kl upto 12/2002 and the defective meter was replaced on 5/8/2002, that now at the premise an office is functioning and the connection has been converted to non domestic from 11/2003 as per Water Supply Regulation, that as on 11/2003 the arrear amount of Rs.16,480/- was pending for payment deducting all the remittances. Ext.P6 is the copy of the Order dated 26/5/2003 in O.P. 80/01 filed by V.C. Balakrishnan, President, Sastri Nagar Association, Karamana. As per Ext. P6 Order the bills issued by opposite parties to the complainant Association members stood cancelled and opposite parties were directed to take readings on properly running meters and make an assessment for a back period of 3 years and when the amount of arrears comes to more than Rs.5,000/- such amount is allowed to be paid in 12 monthly installments. The very case of the complainant is that he is also a member of the said Association and he is also eligibel to get the benefits of the Order in O.P.80/01. The opposite party has no case that complainant is not a member of the said Association. Ext. P7 is a postal receipt dated 1/9/2003 addressed to opposite parties. Ext.P8 is a letter showing certificate of posting dated 1/9/03. Ext. P9 is the copy of various Government Orders dated 1/3/93, 2/4/94 &23/3/1999. Ext.P10 is the copy of the bill dated 20/10/09 for Rs.33,289/-. Ext. P11 is the copy of building permit issued by Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to the complainant. The very case of the opposite parties is that on numerous occassions meter readings were taken, that on 31/10/94 the meter reading was 2547kl, on 25/6/97 meter reading was 4099kl, on 1/10/2000 meter reading was 5708 and on 15/5/2002 meter was found to be not working. As per Ext. D1 consumer ledger (computer print) meter replacement was done on 19/7/88 and on 2/8/2002. On perusal of Ext.D1, it is seen that meter reading varied from .5kl on 19/7/88 to 5701kl on 15/5/02 again after replacement of meter, the reading varied from .5kl on 2/8/2002 to 2218kl on 18/2/2006. It is pertinent to point out that had opposite party taken meter reading on 31/10/94, 25/6/97 and 1/10/2000 definitely opposite party would have issued adjustment bills then and there. The very case of the complainant is that no adjustment bill has been sent based on the readings said to have been taken on various occassions by the opposite parties. According to complainant, opposite party had sent only one bill dated 5/8/2002 for water consumption from 1/10/94 to 31/7/2002. As per Ext. P5 meter reading details issued by the Office of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division dated 19/1/2004 it is stated that new meter fitted on 2/8/2002, that on 15/2/2003 meter reading was 247kl ie.after installation of the new meter from 2/8/2002 to 15/2/2003 the average monthly consumption has been 38.1kl. Nowhere in the version it is seen averred by the opposite party that they have issued adjustment bill immediately after taking the meter readings. Opposite party has not acted as per the Provisions of Water Supply Regulation, non- issuance of adjustment bills in accordance with the Provisions of Water Supply Regulation will definitely amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In this context, the contention of the complaint that no meter reading was ever taken and no direction to remit any charges till 5/9/2002 is seen relevant. Additional bill issued on the basis of average consumption after a lapse of 9 years will definitely saddle the complainant. Further it is argued by the complainant that he has no complaint regarding the bills for the subsequent period and he is willing to remit the water charges for subsequent period claimed by opposite parties. In view of the foregoing discussions and evidence available on records we are of the view that opposite party has not taken meter reading as per regulations and issued adjustment bills accordingly thereby there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstance of the case and arguments of the complainant we find justice will be well met if complainant is directed to remit water charges for 3 years prior to the date of replacement of faulty meter with new one (ie. 2/8/2002) on the basis of 38kl per month for the period 2/8/99 to 2/8/2002, on the basis of actual consumption of water from 2/8/2002 to 5/2/2003 and thereafter to pay water charges on the basis of actual reading from 2/8/2002 onwards. The interim order issued to opposite party not to disconnect the water connection to consumer No.1815 D is made absolute. In the result, the bills dated 5/8/02 issued by opposite party is cancelled. Opposite parties are directed to collect water charge at the rate of 38kl per month for the period from 2/8/1999 to 2/8/2002. Opposite party shall raise fresh bill on the basis of actual meter readings from 2/8/2002 onwards. Complainant shall remit the bill amounts by 5 equal monthly installments commencing from the date of receipt of this order. The interim order to opposite party not to disconnect water connection is made absolute. There is no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Both parties shall bear and suffer their respective 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 30th day of June, 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad.
O.P.No.78/A/2004 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness : NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Original Provisional Invoice Card P2 : Original consumer bill dated 5/08/2002 P2(a) : Copy of letter dated 10/09/2002 addressed to opp. Party P3 : Original consumer bill No.09 dated 20/08/2003 P3(a) : Copy of letter dated 29/08/03 addressed to opp.party P3(b) : Original consumer bill No. 37 dated 18/10/2003 P3(c) : Copy of letter dated 8/11/2003 addressed to opp.party P3(d) : Acknowledgement card P4 : Letter dated 18/11/2003 addressed to complainant. P4(a) : Original notice dated 19/11/2003 P4(b) : Copy of letter dated 24/11/2002 addressed to opp.party P4(c) : " 28/11/2003 " P4(d) : Acknowledgment card P5 : Letter dated 19/01/2004 addressed to complainant P6 : Copy of order dated 26/05/2003 P7 : Postal receipt dated 01/09/2003 P8 : Under certificate of posting dated 01/09/2003 P9 : Copy of the various Govt. Orders P10 : Copy of Demand Disconnection notice dated 20/10/09 P11 : Copy of building permit.
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties documents:
D1 : Copy of consumer ledger.
PRESIDENT.
| | [ Smt. S.K.Sreela] Member[HONORABLE MR. Sri G. Sivaprasad] PRESIDENT[ Smt. Beena Kumari. A] Member | | 
