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. 268/2003 Filed on 16/07/2003
Dated: 30..11..2009
Complainant:
R. Vanaja Devi, T.C.14/1667, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. K. Sreekumaran Nair) Opposite parties:
Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. The Asst. Executive Engineer, Palayam Section, K.W.A., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Advs. Santhamma Thomas & P. Dileepkhan)
This O.P having been heard on 29..08..2009, the Forum on 30..11..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant had purchased 2 ¾ cents of property with building having consumer No. 5693/N by virtue of a sale deed dated 4/11/91 from one Smt. Rajeenammol for her residential purpose, that the said building was very old thatched one, that after purchasing the said building she approached the opposite parties several times to get water connection transferred in her name and that on all occasions opposite parties did not take any action, that for the last 12 years nothing regarding the monthly amount was intimated her by the opposite parties, that on 10/7/2003 complainant received a notice dated 3/7/2003 from the 2nd opposite party informing her to remit an amount of Rs.59,270/- towards water charge arrear upto 6/03 within seven days from the date of service of notice failing which, water connection will be cut off without further notice, that no meter reading was taken all along for the last 12 years, that the amount calculated is only on an arbitrary basis, and that the opposite parties have no legal right to claim such a huge amount from the complainant. Hence this complaint to cancel the illegal notice issued by the opposite parties. 2. Opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint itself is not maintainable, that the complainant has not furnished the ownership certificate from the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, that no written application in Form No.1 along with a fee of Rs.15/- is produced by the complainant, that the complainant is not a consumer in the ledger of the opposite parties, that regular bills were issued to the consumer, in which all the particulars were given, that since constructions were going on, the connection was put in non-domestic category, that the meter readings were taken on 6/94 and 4/99, that thereafter the meter is not working. The consumer did not turn to replace the defective water meter and hence average consumption was fixed as 31kl and billing was made, that the bill is not illegal. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the notice dated 3/7/03 cancelled? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get cost? If so, at what amount?
4. In support of the claim, complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked. In rebuttal, 2nd opposite party has filed proof affidavit and Exts. D1 & D2 were marked. 5. Points (i) to (iii) : It has been the case of the complainant that she had purchased 2 ¾ cents of property with building having consumer No. 5693/N by virtue of a sale deed dated 4/11/91 from one Smt. Rajeenammol for her residential purpose, that the said building was very old thatched one, that after purchasing the said building she approached the opposite parties several times to get water connection transferred in her name and that on all occasions opposite parties did not take any action. It has also been the case of the complainant that for the last 12 years nothing regarding the monthly amount was intimated her by the opposite parties, that on 10/7/2003 she received a notice dated 3/7/2003 from the 2nd opposite party informing her to remit an amount of Rs.59,270/- towards water charge arrear upto 6/03 within seven days, failing which, water connection will be cut off without further notice. It is submitted by the opposite parties that the connection as regards consumer No.VAZ/5693/N is under non-domestic category, that huge arrears is because of huge fine accumulation, that the complainant is not a consumer, that regular bills were issued to the consumer, that meter readings were taken on 6/94 and 4/99 and thereafter the meter is not working. It is submitted that meter has not been replaced by the consumer and hence average consumption was fixed as 31kl and billing was made accordingly. Ext.P1 is the notice dated 3/7/2003 issued to Smt. Regimol. M. It is seen stated in Ext.P1 that the consumer has not paid water charges from --- to 6/03 as per bill and provisional invoice card issued to her. It is further stated in Ext.P1 that the supply of water will be cut off from the said premises at her expenses after 7 days of this notice served upon her. Ext.P2 is the copy of the property tax receipt dated 16/4/2002. Ext. P3 is the copy of the 1st and 2nd pages of ration card No.1102035553. Ext.P4 is the copy of the sale deed dated 4/11/91 in favour of the complainant. Ext.D1 is the copy of the consumer ledger to consumer No.VAZ/5693. On perusal of Ext.D1, it is seen that PIC amount for 31kl as on 6/94 is Rs.143/- and PIC amount for 31kl as on 4/99 is Rs.228/-, that connection is under non-domestic category, the name of the consumer is Smt. Regimol. M. Ext.D2 is the consumer bill dated 7/9/04 for Rs.79,205/-. It is the case of the opposite parties that meter readings were regularly taken. Opposite parties did not furnish any document to show that meter readings were regularly taken. It is submitted by the opposite parties that dues upto June 2003 was Rs.57,270/-. Opposite parties did not disclose from which date onwards water charges fell due. Opposite parties are duty bound to assess meter reading at regular intervals, and to issue adjustment bills to the consumer then and there. Without disclosing the details regarding the manner in which the amount was calculated as seen in Ext.P1 notice we cannot accept due amount as seen in Ext.P1 notice. It is the say of the complainant that she had purchased the property in respect of which the aforesaid connection was installed in the year 1991, she has not mentioned in the complaint, whether she has remitted any amount towards water charges after the purchase of the said property on 4/11/91. There is no evidence to show that she has applied for transfer of water connection to her name. She has no case that she has not used water from opposite parties from 1991 onwards. She has approached this Forum in the year 2003, though she had purchased property in the year 1991. There is specific provision in the Water Supply Regulation when a consumer commits default in payment of bills issued by opposite parties. Opposite parties did not follow the said Regulation. Further the burden is upon the opposite parties to prove how the said connection was put in non-domestic category. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In view of the above and in the light of evidence available on records, we are of the view that, justice will be well met if Ext.P1 notice is quashed and complainant is directed to remit minimum water charge of 10kl from 4/11/1991 under domestic tariff till the date of Ext.P1 notice (03/07/2003), thereafter bill amount on the basis of average actual water consumption for three months on the new meter to be installed after transfer of water connection to complainant's name. In the result, complaint is allowed. The notice dated 03/07/2003 (Ext.P1) issued to complainant is hereby quashed. Complainant shall remit minimum water charge of 10Kl per month under domestic category from 4/11/1991 to 3/7/2003, after adjusting Rs.2,000/- already remitted by the complainant vide order dated 16/7/2003 and other amounts, if any, remitted during the said period. After clearing of the said dues opposite parties shall permit the complainant to transfer water connection to her name and to replace the faulty water meter with new one at complainant's own cost and thereafter opposite parties shall raise fresh bill under domestic category on the basis of average actual consumption of water for three months for the whole period retrospectively from 8/03 onwards after adjusting amounts if any remitted by the complainant during the said period. There is no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. 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 30th day of November, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad. O.P.No.268/2003 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness : NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Original notice dated 3/7/2003. P2 : Photocopy of Tax receipt P3 : " Ration card P4 : " sale deed. III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL IV. Opposite parties' documents: D1 : Photocopy of consumer ledger dated 28/9/2004. D2 : " consumer bill dated 07/09/2004.
PRESIDENT.
|
