BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of July 2014
Filed on : 25/04/2013
PRESENT:
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.304/2013
Between
M.J. Tomy, : Complainant
Mundadan House, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court
Kidangoor P.O., Road, Muvattupuzha-686 661)
Angamaly-683 572.
And
1. Managing Director, : Opposite parties
Kerala Water Authority, (By Adv. P.A. Augustine,
Thiruvananthapuram-1. Standing Counsel For Kerala
Water Authority, 91, D.D. Tex
World, Market road, Kochi-11.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
P.H. Sub Division,
Angamaly-683 572.
3. Deputy Tahsildar,
Revenue Recovery,
Aluva-683 101.
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is a domestic category consumer of water supply under the 2nd opposite party bearing consumer No. AD/2280. The complainant had been using water for washing clothes only. The connection was provided to the house situated in a 20 cents compound.
Hence the use of water from the water supply scheme is less and within the minimum PIC charge. While so, the complainant was served with a notice asking to pay Rs. 12,404/- to avoid disconnection. The supply was disconnected for nonpayment of dues. Thereafter the complainant submitted an application for meter testing so as to ascertain the correctness of the meter due to the fact that the consumption recorded in the meter had been very high considering the actual consumption. In the meantime, he paid Rs. 12,404/- on 20-03-2006. Though there was no consumption after the disconnection of the supply, another bill for Rs. 6,728/- dated 29-11-2006 was served on the complainant towards the arrears for the period from 12/05 to 11/06. The complainant again submitted an application before the 2nd opposite party to withdraw the demand raised against the complainant with respect to non existing connection. Instead of withdrawing the demand, a disconnection notice was served on the complainant on 04-09-2007 asking him to pay Rs. 11,349/-. Again another complaint was registered with the 2nd opposite party for withdrawing the demand. Subsequently after a gap of 7 years the complainant was served with a notice dated 22-02-2013 by the 3rd opposite party demanding to pay Rs. 25,809/- towards arrears of water charges. It is further stated that the demand has been raised as per the request of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant is not liable to pay Rs. 25,809/- shown in the demand notice dated 22-02-2013. The complainant had not consumed a single drop of water after 12/2005. Hence he is entitled for the withdrawal of the demand for Rs. 25,809/- raised by the 3rd opposite party in their notice dated 22-02-2013 together with costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:
The complainant was a consumer of the opposite party since 05-04-2001 to 20-03-2009 . Due to the non-payment of water charges for a long period, a consolidated bill for the period from April 2001 to November 2005 was issued to the complainant demanding Rs. 12,404/-. The complainant did not pay the amount. Dismantling notice was issued on 24-01-2006 and the connection was disconnected on 20-03-2006. Subsequently the complainant remitted an amount of Rs. 12,404/- on 20-03-2006. At that time Rs. 1,834/- was also due towards water charges for the period from December 2005 to February 2006, however the connection was restored. Thereafter the complainant did not pay any amount till disconnection on 20-03-2009. To realize the arrears of water charges of Rs. 25,089/- the opposite party made a requisition to the District Collector, Ernakulam on 17-08-2012 to initiate revenue recovery proceedings. The complainant is liable to pay the amount with interest and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exbts. A1 to A5 and B1 were marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite party respectively. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are
i. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the
impugned notice?
ii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay costs of the
proceedings to the complainant?
5. Point No. i. At the outset, at the instance of the complainant vide order in I.A. No. 234/2013 dated 25-04-2013 this Forum directed the 3rd respondent not to initiate further proceedings in Exbt. A9 dated
22-02-2013. According to the complainant on receipt of the arrear bill for Rs. 12,406/- he remitted the said amount on 20-03-2006. It is stated that though there was no consumption of water after the disconnection of the supply, the opposite parties issued Exbt. A1 bill dated 11-09-2007 for Rs. 11,349/- and Exbt. A3 bill dated 29-11-2006 for Rs. 6,728/- without any reasons.
6. The opposite party contended that on remittance of Rs. 12,404/- as per Exbt. A2 dated 20-03-2006 the water connection was restored. The opposite party maintains that thereafter the complainant failed to pay any water charges and the connection was disconnected on 20-03-2009 and thus the disputed notice towards realization of the water charges.
7. During the proceedings in this Forum the complainant filed I.A. No. 529/2013 calling upon the opposite parties to produce the meter reading register of consumer No. 2280, it was allowed on 05-10-2013. The 2nd
opposite party filed an affidavit dated 18-12-2013 stating that the meter reading register in respect of the complainant is not available in his office for his own reasons. We are of the firm view that the meter reading register is the best piece of evidence which goes to show the consumption of water by the complainant. The non-production of the same in this Forum is fatal to the case of the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in The Proprietor M/s. Vincy Enterprises Vs. A.J. Kedappa Reddy and Anr. (RP No. 4611/2008 dicided on 13-01-2009 held as follows:
“for the failure to produce the best evidence in his possession the only inference that can be drawn is that the evidence did not exist and has been subsequently created as an after thought”.
The opposite party could not produce any evidence to show the consumption of water by the complainant. In the absence of such an evidence we are only to hold that the impugned bill has been issued without basis. We are only to set aside the same.
8.Point No. ii. The primary grievance of the complainant having been met adequately and sufficiently we refrain from awarding costs of the proceedings to the complainant.
9. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
i. We set aside Exbt. A4 notice issued by the 3rd opposite party to the
complainant.
ii. The order in I.A. No. 234/2013 dated 25-04-2013 is made
absolute.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2014
Sd/-
A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of disconnection notice dt. 04-09-2007
A2 : Copy of receipt dt. 20-03-2006
A3 : Copy of bill dt. 29-11-2006
A4 : Copy of demand dt. 22/02/2013
Opposite party’s exhibits :
Ext. B1 : Copy of consumer personal ledger
