BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 120/2003 Filed on 15.03.2003 Dated : 15.12.2009 Complainant: M. Sarojini Amma, T.C. No. 28/843, Pulimoodu, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. R. Rejy & S.S. Laly) Opposite parties:
The Kerala Water Authority represented by its Managing Director, Jala Bhavan, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Central Sub Division, Jala Bhavan, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Engineer, Central Sub Division, Water Works Section II, Pattoor, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Santhamma Thomas & Dileep Khan)
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 06.12.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.10.2009, the Forum on 15.12.2009 delivered the following: ORDER SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. PCH 2674, that the connection is under non-domestic category, that opposite party issued a provisional invoice card in March 2000 showing the monthly amount to be remitted is Rs. 213/- and arrears upto March 2000 as Rs. 1,085/-, and that complainant remitted Rs. 1,298/- on 28.04.2000 towards the monthly amount. When complainant approached the opposite party to pay water bill on 28.06.2001 she was told that water charge from 02/2001 is Rs. 511/- and an amount of Rs. 7,433/- is due to the opposite party as arrears. On paying Rs. 4,378/- complainant approached the 3rd opposite party and complained about the exorbitant bill amount issued by opposite party. Opposite party told her that only after paying the whole amount he could take further action and hence complainant remitted an amount of Rs. 3,055/- on the same day itself. That even if water charge from 02/2001 is considered as Rs. 511/- the total arrears upto June 2001 will be only Rs. 4,472/-. Complainant received another bill dated 31.10.2001 showing that there is an arrear of Rs. 1,595/- upto September 2001. In the said bill average consumption of water stated is 63.3 KL and also shown that meter is working. The meter readings are not specified. On 04.09.2002 3rd opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 22,231/- stating that meter is working, monthly charge from 15.05.2002 increased to Rs. 2,486/- from Rs. 114/-. Again opposite party issued another bill on 02.01.2003 for Rs. 34,318/-. Even after repeated complaints to the opposite parties no action was taken by the opposite party. On 04.03.2003 another bill was issued for Rs. 40,730/- without specifying the meter reading and quantity of water consumption. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to check the water meter and take the readings correctly and to cancel the bills dated 31.10.2001, 04.09.2002, 02.01.2003 and 04.03.2003 and to return the excess amount received from the complainant along with compensation. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the complainant is a non-domestic consumer, and that as per the provisional invoice card the monthly consumption was 28.7 KL. The charges vary with actual consumption based on meter reading. Opposite party issued a bill amounting to Rs. 7,433/- on 28.06.2001, that complainant paid upto 04/00 at the rate of Rs. 213/- for 28.7 KL. A bill was issued for the period from 07/01 to 10/01 at the rate of Rs. 511/- per month. A revised bill issued on 18.02.2002 for an amount of Rs. 1,019/- upto 01/02, that the consumer paid water charge upto 06/01 at the rate of Rs. 511/- per month for 63.3 KL. The revised bill issued due to reduced consumption to 15.2 KL. On 04.09.2002 a bill for Rs. 22,231/- upto 08/02 was issued. Consumer remitted water charges upto 01/02 @ Rs. 114/- per month for 15.2 KL per month. Bill issued on 02.01.2003 for an amount of Rs. 34,318/- upto 12/2002 @ 249.8 KL per month. On that period water meter recorded as faulty. The connection was disconnected after issuing disconnection notice and restored on the same day after knowing the fact that complainant filed a case against opposite party. The arrear bill issued is correct. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The points that arise for consideration are:- Whether the complainant is entitled to get bills dated 31.10.2001, 04.09.2002, 02.01.2003 and 04.03.2003 cancelled? Whether the opposite party has collected excess amount from the complainant? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?
In support of the complaint, complainant's son-in-law has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P7 and C1 were marked. Opposite parties did not file affidavit or documents. Points (i) to (iv):- Admittedly, complainant is a non-domestic consumer of the opposite parties. It has been the case of the complainant that opposite party had issued a provisional invoice card in March 2000 by Ext. P1 showing monthly amount to be remitted as Rs. 213/- and arrears upto 03/2000 as Rs. 1085/-, that complainant had remitted an amount of Rs. 1,298/-on 28.04.2000 towards the said arrears and monthly amount upto 04/00. Submission by the complainant is that when she approached the 3rd opposite party to pay water bill on 28.06.2001, she was told that the water charge from 02/01 is Rs. 511/- and an amount of Rs. 7,433/- is due to the opposite parties as arrears, that on paying Rs. 4,378/- she approached the 3rd opposite party and complained about exorbitant bill amount, but opposite party insisted her to remit the remaining amount to take further action on the complaint. She had remitted the remaining amount of Rs. 3,055/-on 28.06.2001. It has also been the case of the complainant that even if water charge from 02/01 is considered as Rs. 511/- the arrears upto June 2001 will be only Rs. 4,472/-, but opposite party had collected an excess amount of Rs. 2,961/- from her. On perusal of Ext. P1 it is seen that consumer is under non-domestic category, monthly amount to be remitted from 03/00 to 01/01 is Rs. 213/- and Rs. 511/- from 02/01 onwards and the amount of arrears upto 03/00 was Rs. 1,085/-. In the payment schedule it is seen that complainant had remitted Rs. 1,298/- on 28.04.2000, Rs. 4,378/- on 28.06.2001 and Rs. 3,055/- on 28.06.2001. Ext. P2 is the copy of the receipt for Rs. 4,378/- dated 28.06.2001 issued by the opposite party. Ext. P3 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 31.10.2001 wherein meter reading is not seen recorded, whereas average consumption is mentioned as 63.3 KL, and arrears upto 09/01 is Rs.1,595/- and by adding PIC amount, the amount to be remitted became Rs. 2,106/-, meter status recorded is working. Ext. P3(a) is the copy of the consumer bill dated 04.09.2002 for Rs. 22,231/- in which meter reading recorded: average consumption from 13.11.2001 to 15.05.2002 is stated as 249.8 KL, arrears upto 08/02 is Rs. 751/- and monthly charge is Rs. 112/-. Ext. P3(b) is the copy of the consumer bill dated 02.01.2003 wherein meter reading is not seen recorded, arrears upto 11/02 is Rs. 31,830/-, monthly charge included is Rs. 2,488/-. Ext. P3 (c) is the copy of the consumer bill dated 04.03.2003 for Rs. 40,730/-. Ext. P4 is the copy of the letter dated 30.12.2002 addressed to the 2nd opposite party seeking necessary steps to get the bill dated 04.09.2002 reduced to a normal date. Ext. P5 is the copy of the letter addressed to 2nd opposite party reminding the representation dated 30.12.2002 and grievances about the arrear bill dated 31.01.2003. Ext. P6 is the copy of the notice dated 07.03.2003 issued to complainant stating that she has not paid Rs. 40,730/- towards water charges from 02/02 to 02/03 as per bill and provisional invoice card issued to her by the opposite party within the time allowed and that the water supply will be cut off from the said premises at her expenses after 5 days of the said notice served upon her. Complainant already got reconnection of water supply by virtue of interim order of this Forum. Opposite parties did not file affidavit or documents to substantiate their version. It is pertinent to point out that water meter reading is not recorded in the bills except P3 (a) bill issued to the complainant, but water charge has been assessed. Moreover the amount mentioned in Ext. P3 to P3(c) are not complementary but contradictory. As per Ext. C1 commission report the building consists of 13 room and nobody is seen residing therein at the time of inspection of the building. Commissioner got information from the complainant and others present therein that the building was used for residence prior to 3 months from the date of inspection. Commission has reported that there is 16 water taps in the said building. At the time of inspection there was no water supply in the said building. Commissioner has further reported that when he opened the valve fitted near the water meter water was not flowing through it, while water meter was revolving and meter reading was seen. It is further reported by the commissioner that while testing firstly, the meter reading was 901-01. When opened the walve water was not flowing, but meter reading changed from 901-01 to 02 to 03, thereby commissioner has reported that the water meter fitted in the premises is faulty. Commission never reported any leakage either in the water connection, or meter or through the pipe therein. Though opposite party had filed objection to commission report, opposite party never attempted to cross examine the commission thereby to shake the veracity of the commission report. Hence we are inclined to accept the commission report as such. In view of the foregoing discussions and in the light of evidence available on records, we are of the considered opinion that water meter is faulty and the amounts assessed by the opposite parties are unilateral and against facts. The bills issued on the basis of guess work by the opposite parties will be against the principle of natural justice. Hence the said bills issued to the complainant deserve to be cancelled. Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if complainant is directed to remit Rs. 511/- per month from 07/01 to 04/03. In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The bill dated 31.10.2001, 04.09.2002, 02.01.2003 and 04.03.2003 issued by opposite parties are hereby cancelled. Complainant shall remit Rs. 511/- per month from 07/01 to 04/03 to opposite party and opposite parties shall accept the said amount. On acceptance of the said amount, opposite party shall permit the complainant to replace the faulty meter with new one on complainant's own cost. 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 December 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, President. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
O.P. No. 120/2003 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : NIL II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Photocopy of provisional invoice card. P2 - Photocopy of receipt dated 28.06.2001 P3 - Photocopy of consumer bill dated 31.10.2001 P3(a) - Photocopy of consumer bill dated 04.09.2002. P3(b) - Photocopy of consumer bill dated 02.01.2003 P3(c) - Photocopy of consumer bill dated 04.03.2003. P4 - Photocopy of the letter dated 30.12.2002 addressed to the 2nd opposite party. P5 - Photocopy of Letter dated 30.01.2003 P6 - Photocopy of the notice dated 07.03.2003 issued to complainant. P7 - Photocopy of the letter dated 13.01.2003.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL V COURT EXHIBIT C1 - Commission Report
PRESIDENT
jb |
