BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 1st day of February 2014
Filed on : 13/09/2013
PRESENT:
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member
CC.No. 650/2013
Between
N.K. Kurien, : Complainant
Njavarakkattu house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court
Moozhy, Arakuzha P.O., Road, Muvattupuzha)
Moovattupuzha-686 672.
Vs
1. Managing Director, : Opposite parties
Kerala Water Authority, (By Adv. P.A. Augustine,
Jala bhavan, Standing Counsel for Kerala
Thiruvananthapuram-695 033. Water Authority, 91, DD Tex
World, Market road, Kochi-11)
2.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
P.H., Sub Division,
Muvattupuzha- 686 661.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is a consumer of the 2nd opposite party. The building in which the water connection was provided has been rented out for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Now a Toddy shop is functioning in the building. The main pipe line from the Arakuzha storage tank of the opposite party was drawn above the property of the complainant and is having leakage of the pipe line causing wetness throughout the day in the premises. While so, the complainant was served with a demand notice dated 21-03-2012 asking him to remit Rs. 56,529/-. On receipt of the exorbitant bill the complainant conducted an enquiry with the opposite party. Subsequently after conducting an inspection in the premises, the leakage of the under ground pipe line was detected. The complainant could not notice the leakage of the under-ground pipe line earlier, due to the fact that there has been regular leakage of the pipe line drawn through his property by the opposite party. The complainant submitted an application before the Hon’ble Minister for water supply seeking waiving of the arrear bill. Subsequently the 1st opposite party had issued an order on 29-09-2013 asking to remit Rs. 64,163/- by waiving Rs. 8,674/- from the total arrears calculated up to June 2013. Thereafter the 2nd opposite party had issued a notice to the complainant asking him to remit Rs. 64,163/- in lump sum on or before 20-09-2013 to avoid further coercive steps. The complainant is not in a position to remit the amount of Rs. 64,163/- in lump sum due to his financial constraints. Hence he made a request before the 2nd opposite party for making the payment by 12 equal monthly instalments. But his request was turned down by the 2nd opposite party. The sole reason for the non detection of underground leakage is due to the regular leakage of the main pipeline drawn through the premises of the complainant by the opposite parties. Hence the complainant is not liable to remit the exorbitant bill caused due to the pipe leakage and is entitled for the revision of the arrear bill by taking long average for the period from 18-10-2007 to 30-06-2013. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to reassess the arrear bill issued to the complainant by taking long average for the period from October 2007 to June 2013 and also to provide instalment facility so as to remit the amount in 12 monthly instalments. The complainant is also entitled to get costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:
The water connection was granted on 13-02-1995 under non-domestic category. Now a toddy shop is functioning in the said building. The allegation of the complainant that leakage in the main pipe line of the opposite party from the Arakkuzha storage tank causing wetness through out the day is not correct. The leakage in the pipe line was rectified in time. Even if any leakage is there in the main pipe line it will not cause running of meter installed in the service line, of the complainant. The bill for Rs. 56,529/- served to the complainant was prepared based on the meter reading recorded in the water meter installed in the service line of the complainant. While taking meter reading on 14-03-2011, 07-10-2011 and 03-01-2012 high quantity of water consumption was recorded in the water meter compared to previous consumption which led to the issuance of additional bill for the excess consumption. On receiving the bill the complainant submitted an application before the Minister for Water Resources, Kerala praying for the waiver of the arrear bill. The said application was forwarded to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party considered the grievances of the complainant and waived a sum of Rs. 8,674/- under one-time settlement scheme. Thereafter the complainant requested before the 2nd opposite party to allow 12 equal instalments to pay the amount. Since the case is considered under one time settlement, no further instalment can be allowed and so the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the disputed bill.
3. Oral evidence has not been adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the
impugned bill?
ii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay the costs of the
proceedings to the complainant?
5. Point No. i. As per Ext. A1 demand/disconnection notice dated
21-03-2012 the complainant was called upon to pay Rs. 56,529/- towards water charge arrears up to 30-03-2012. Admittedly the complainant submitted an application before the Hon’ble Minister for Water Resources to get the amount as per Ext. A1 waived. The Hon’ble Minister forwarded the application to the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party considered the matter under one time settlement scheme and waived a sum of Rs. 8,674/- as against the actual bill amount of Rs. 72,837/- evident from Ext. A3 proceedings of the 1st opposite party. On the basis of Ext. A2 the 2nd opposite party issued Ext. A4 to the complainant requesting to remit Rs. 64,163/- in lump sum on or before 20-09-2013. On receipt of Ext. A4 the complainant caused Ext. A5 letter dated 20-08-2013 requesting the 2nd opposite party to grant 12 instalments to pay the amount. Since there was no response he opted to file this complaint.
6. It is to be noted that nothing is on record to substantiate the contention of the complainant in this Forum. Now the prayer of the complainant is limited to the extent of granting instalment facility to pay the amount arrived at in the one-time settlement. We think that the prayer of the complainant is genuine and reasonable. But so is the decision of the 2nd opposite party. We are of the view that even if the instalment facility as prayed for is granted, the opposite parties would not be put to any damage or monetary loss since what is due to them can be obtained through more slowly for that reason, we feel that the ends of justice will not be mocked.
7. Point No. ii. The primary grievance of the complainant has been met sufficiently, Hence costs of the proceedings is not called for. Rejected hence.
8. Accordingly we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
The complainant shall pay the amount carried at in one time settlement in 12 monthly equal instalments starting from 01-03-2014. It is made clear that if the complainant fails to pay the amount as stated above the complainant shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 1st day of February 2014.
Sd/-A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s :
Ext. A1 : Copy of demand disconnection notice
dt. 21-03-2012
A2 : Copy of letter dt. 08-02-2013
A3 : Copy of prodgs. of KWA dt. 29-07-2013
A4 : Copy of letter dt. 19-08-2013
A5 : Copy of letter dt. 20/08/2013
Opposite party’s exhibits: Nil
