BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 293/2008 Filed on 29.11.2008

Dated : 30.06.2010

Complainant:

M. Varghese, Palazhikuzhi Thadatharikathu Veedu, Kachani, Kachani P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite parties :

1. The Managing Director, Jala Bhavan, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.T.P Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Rajesh. R)

This O.P having been heard on 30.04.2010, the Forum on 30.06.2010 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. VTK 1607, that there was no regular water supply in his pipes from 06.05.2001, that even after lodging complaints to opposite parties, no action was taken by them. Subsequently, to redress his grievance he filed a complaint before the CDRF, Tvpm vide O.P. No. 70/2002 which was disposed on 18.07.2003 directing the opposite parties to rectify the defects of the water connection to the complainant's house within 2 months and to issue bills on the basis of meter readings after replacement of the faulty meter with new one. It is submitted by the complainant that opposite party replaced the faulty meter with new one only on 17.01.2007 and issued a bill for Rs. 1,369/- within 6 days from the date of replacement of meter. Opposite party did not comply the order of the Forum in true spirit nor did they inspect the site of water connection and still complainant is not getting water in his line. Even after lodging the complaint to the 2^nd opposite party on 02.04.2008, opposite party did not take any action to redress the grievance of the complainant. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to ensure continuous availability of water in his connection, to quash the bill issued by opposite parties and to pay compensation to the complainant.

Opposite parties filed version contending that the complainant did not remit water charge from 2002, though complainant has used water from the opposite parties. Complainant did not take any action to replace the faulty meter with new one as per the order of this Forum in O.P 70/2002. As per the Water Supply Regulations, complainant is bound to replace the same on his own costs. Since complainant failed to do so, opposite parties replaced the faulty meter with new one to comply the order of this Forum. Complainant acted against the order of this Forum. Complainant is not entitled to get any interest on the amount as per the order in O.P. No. 70/2002. On enquiry by opposite party's subordinates it was found that complainant had used 10 KL water per month. Complaint itself is hit by resjudicata. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The issues that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bill dated 23.01.2007 cancelled?

2. Whether the complainant is getting water in his line?

3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 & P2. Complainant has been cross examined by opposite party. Opposite party did not file affidavit or documents.

Points (i) to (iv):- It is not in dispute that complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties. Admittedly complainant had filed O.P 70/2002 before this Forum and opposite party was directed to rectify the defects of the water connection to the complainant's house and to ensure continuous availability of drinking water to him, to replace the water meter and to issue bills on the basis of meter readings. If the order in O.P 70/2002 is not complied by the opposite party, filing E.A to execute the order is the only remedy. It is the specific case of the complainant that the meter was replaced on 17.01.2007 after a lapse of 5 years from the date of order. In this context it is to be pointed out that as per the Provisions of Water Supply Regulations, water meter has to be replaced by the complainant on his own cost. It is the say of the opposite party that complainant did not take any steps to replace the faulty meter with new one with the consent of the opposite party. Hence opposite party replaced the faulty meter with new one on 17.01.2007. Opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 1,369/- on 23.01.2007 to the complainant which is challenged by the complainant stating that meter was replaced on 17.01.2007 and the said bill was issued within 6 days from the date of replacement. Ext. P1 is the bill dated 23.01.2007 wherein the present meter reading is mentioned as 2 KL and prior bimonthly consumption is recorded as 6 KL. There is nothing in the bill to show how opposite party has calculated Rs. 1,369/-. As per Ext. P1 the arrear amount is mentioned as Rs. 1,325/-, but nowhere in Ext. P1 is it seen mentioned from which date onwards water charges fell due. Admittedly new meter installed on 17.01.2007. Hence bill has to be prepared on the basis of the meter reading. Opposite party has exerted urgency in preparing and issuing Ext. P1 bill without considering the actual bimonthly consumption of water. Ext. P2 is the bill dated 25.11.2009 for Rs. 2,865/-. Complainant in his affidavit deposed that he is ready to remit Rs. 1,496/- towards water charge including the bill amount of Rs. 1,369/- by Ext. P1. It is further deposed by way of affidavit that opposite party failed to ensure continuous water supply to his premises and he requested this Forum to direct opposite parties to disconnect the water connection after receiving the admitted amount of Rs. 1,496/-. In his cross examination complainant denied the suggestion that non-availability of water to his premises was due to problems in his service line. Since Ext. P1 is prepared not on the basis of actual consumption of water we have no hesitation to cancel Ext. P1 bill. In view of the admission made by the complainant in his affidavit that due to non-availability of water he wanted to disconnect the water connection after remitting the admitted amount of Rs. 1,496/-, we find it is just and proper to direct the complainant to pay Rs. 1,496/- towards water charges in order to facilitate the disconnection of water connection.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Bill dated 23.01.2007 issued by opposite parties is cancelled. Complainant is directed to pay Rs. 1,496/- after deducting the amount of Rs. 1,369/- in the bill dated 25.11.2009. Opposite party is directed to accept Rs. 1,496/- towards water charges and on acceptance of the same opposite party shall disconnect water connection to consumer No. VTK 1607. In the facts and circumstance of the case, there is no compensation. Parties shall bear 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 30^th day of June 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 293/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - M. Varghese

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Bill dated 23.01.2007

P2 - Bill dated 25.11.2009 for Rs. 2,865/-.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb