BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 237/2006 Filed on 18/8/2006
Dated: 31..08..2009 Complainant: A. Vincent, Musavari, Roadarikathu Veedu, Koppam, Vithura- P.O.
(By Adv. V.P. Vipin Kumar) Opposite parties:
1. Kerala Water Authority, represented by its Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram.
Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Nedumangadu. Assistant Executive Engineer, KWA., Nedumangadu. Assistant Engineer, KWA., Water Supply Section Palode.
(By Adv. V.S. Hareendranath & P. Dileep Khan)
This O.P having been heard on 30..07..2009, the Forum on 31..08..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. VTA-533, that he had remitted water charge upto 1/06 without default, that on 2/2/2006 complainant had received a bill for Rs.14,224/- from the opposite parties, that complainant had never used the water as stated in the disputed bill and that the water meter installed in the complainant's premises was faulty. It is stated in the complaint that complainant lodged a complaint before the 3rd opposite party, upon which some of the officials of the opposite parties' office came to the complainant's house to inspect water connection, but there was no water supply at that time and on inspection of the water meter it was found defective which was informed to the complainant by the said officials. It is further stated that on 24/5/2006, one Mr. Vijaya Kumar, Overseer of the opposite parties' office came to the complainant's premises and took the meter and broken the seal of the same, which caused the rain water to leak inside the meter. The disputed bill is prepared witout any basis, the action of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to issue a new bill after setting aside the bill dated 2/2/2006 and to pay cost of the complaint. 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that a bill of Rs.14,224/- was issued to the complainant on 28/2/2006 for actual consumption of water as per Regulations, that the payment of minimum water charges does not mean that there is no arrears with regard to payment of water charges, that the bill was issued for excess quantity of water consumed by the consumer, that the meter reading recorded on 9/1/2006 is 4124kl and that on 16/2/2006 is 4187kl and that on 23/2/2006 is 4197kl and that the average monthly consumption upto 9/1/2006 is 52 kl. Five persons are resding in the family, that the water tap is fitted in the outside area and there is no compound wall for the house, thereby there are ample chances for consumption of water from this tap by the persons residing nearby. The possibility of meter to run in reverse is quiet impossible, unless it is rotated to reverse by somebody, that the consumer has tried to damage the meter in order to fabricate the evidence in his favour. Mr. Vijaya Kumar was directed by Assistant Engineer to take reading and report the condition of water meter on 22/5/2006 and he reported that the party has purposefully tampered the meter. On 31/5/2006, Assistant Executive Engineer directly visited the site and confirmed the purposeful tampering of water meter by the party. There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. There is adequate supply of water in the area. After giving enough notice and completing the legal formalities the water connection was disconnected. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the consumer bill dated 2/2/2006 cancelled? Whether opposite parties are liable to install new water meter? Whether complainant is entitled to get cost?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. One witness as PW2 has filed affidavit. Opposite parties did not file affidavit or documents. Complainant has not been cross examined.
5. Points (i) to (iii) : It has been the case of the complainant that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.VTA 533, that he had remitted water charge upto 1/06 without default, that on 2/2/2006 complainant had received a consumer bill for Rs.14,224/- from the opposite parties, that till the issuance of the said bill there were no dues, that complainant had never used the water as stated in the disputed bill and that the meter installed in the complainant's premises was faulty. It has also been the case of the complainant that complainant had lodged a complaint before the 3rd opposite party, upon which the officials from the opposite parties' office came to the complainant's house to inspect water connection but there was no water supply at that time and on inspection of the water meter it was found defective which was informed to the complainant by the officials. Further complainant says that on 24/5/2006, one Mr. Vijaya Kumar, Overseer of opposite parties' office came to the complainant's premises and took the meter and broken the seal of the same, which caused rain water to leak inside the meter. Ext.P1 is the consumer's meter card, wherein the initial reading is 500, the date of connection is 8/4/1999. On a perusal of Ext.P1, it is found that meter reading is not taken after the installation of the meter. Ext.P2 is the Provisional Invoice Card, As per Ext.P2 the monthly amount to be remitted is Rs.22/- and connection is under domestic category. On a perusal of payment schedule printed overleaf of Ext.P2, only on two occasions, Rs.22/- per month is seen remitted. Ext.P3 is the consumer bill dated 2/2/2006 for Rs.14,224/-. As per Ext.P3 closing meter reading is 4124, arrears from 5/99 to 11/2005 Rs. 13,825/-, adjustment amount is Rs.202/- + Rs.197/-, total arrears is Rs.14,224/-, status of the meter is not mentioned in Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the copy of the letter addressed to 3rd opposite party by the complainant. Ext.P5 is the copy of the letter addressed to the opposite parties. Ext.P6 is the copy of the letter addressed to the opposite parties. Ext.P7 is the copy of the advocate notice dated 6/6/2006 addressed to opposite parties. Ext.P8 is the copy of the certificate of posting. Ext.P9 is the receipt dated 17/1/2006 issued by the opposite parties. As per Ext.P9 complainant has remitted Rs.22/- against 1/2006. Opposite parties did not file affidavit to substantiate the contentions in the version, nor did opposite parties furnish any documents. According to opposite parties, the meter reading recorded on 9/1/2006 is 4124kl, on 16/2/2006 4187kl and on 23/2/2006 4197kl and that the average monthly consumption upto 9/2006 is 52 kl. From 9/1/2006 to 16/2/2006 the monthly consumption is 59kl and from 23/2/2006 the consumption is 32kl. It is pertinent to note that as per Ext.P1, consumer's meter card nowhere, in it meter reading is seen recorded by the opposite parties from the date of installation to the date of filing of this complaint. The specific case of the complainant is that nobody from opposite parties' office came to complainant's premises for meter reading. As per provision of the Water Supply Regulation, meter reading has to be taken once in six months and actual amount due has to be ascertained on reading meter and necessary adjustment bill showing amounts due to the consumer has to be sent once in six months. On a perusal of Ext.P1 consumer's meter card, it is seen that meter reading not recorded on any date, if the meter reader inspected the premises and took meter reading at regular intervals as prescribed in the Act, he would definitely have recorded the same in Ext.P1. Non recording of the meter reading in Ext.P1 would indicate that no meter reading was taken by the opposite parties during the prescribed period. Further the averment in the version that the meter reading recorded on 9/1/2006 is 4124kl and that of 16/2/2006 is 4187kl and that of 23/2/2006 is 4197kl is unbelievable since neither they were entered in Ext. P1 nor were they substantiated by opposite parties by cogent and clinching evidence. It is highly improbable to believe that opposite parties, who had not taken meter reading on meter for a long period since the installation of water meter, has taken meter reading all of a sudden three times within two months. Further complainant's submission is that the said meter in dispute is defective, and that on 24/5/2006 one Mr. Vijaya Kumar, the Overseer in the opposite parties' office, who, in enmity with this complainant for long years, had come to complainant's house under the pretext of inspection of water meter and removed the water meter and destroyed the seal therein which caused the rain water to drop inside the meter. The complainant has not been cross examined by opposite parties, nor did opposite parties file counter affidavit to prove otherwise. Hence the affidavit filed by the complainant remains uncontroverted. Opposite parties had no evidence to substantiate their version. Taking into consideration of totality of circumstance we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met, if complainant is permitted to install a new water meter upon which new bill is to be raised on the basis of average consumption for three months, after deduction of the amounts already remitted by the complainant to opposite parties.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The bills dated 2/2/2006 (Ext.P3) issued by the opposite parties is hereby cancelled. Opposite parties shall permit the complainant to install a new meter at complainant's own cost and shall raise fresh bill on the basis of average actual consumption of water for three months, shown on the new meter, for the whole period retrospectively from 5/99, after adjusting the amounts already remitted by the complainant towards water charge during the said period. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstance 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 31st day of August, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
C.C.No.237/2006 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: PW1 : A. Vincent II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Consumer's meter card No.SB-268602 P2 : Provisional invoice card of consumer No.VTA/533 P3 : Consumer bill No.9 dated 2/2/06 for Rs.14,224/- P4 : Copy of letter issued to the 3rd opposite party by the complainant. P5 : Copy of letter issued to 3rd opposite party by the complainant. P6 : " "
P7 : Copy of advocate notice dated 6/6/2006 issued to opposite party. P8 : Copy of certificate of posting. P9 : Receipt No.AE-391867 dated 17/1/2006 for Rs.22/-.
Opposite parties' witness: NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 237/2006 Filed on 18/8/2006
Dated: 31..08..2009 Complainant: A. Vincent, Musavari, Roadarikathu Veedu, Koppam, Vithura- P.O.
(By Adv. V.P. Vipin Kumar) Opposite parties:
1. Kerala Water Authority, represented by its Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram.
Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Nedumangadu. Assistant Executive Engineer, KWA., Nedumangadu. Assistant Engineer, KWA., Water Supply Section Palode.
(By Adv. V.S. Hareendranath & P. Dileep Khan)
This O.P having been heard on 30..07..2009, the Forum on 31..08..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. VTA-533, that he had remitted water charge upto 1/06 without default, that on 2/2/2006 complainant had received a bill for Rs.14,224/- from the opposite parties, that complainant had never used the water as stated in the disputed bill and that the water meter installed in the complainant's premises was faulty. It is stated in the complaint that complainant lodged a complaint before the 3rd opposite party, upon which some of the officials of the opposite parties' office came to the complainant's house to inspect water connection, but there was no water supply at that time and on inspection of the water meter it was found defective which was informed to the complainant by the said officials. It is further stated that on 24/5/2006, one Mr. Vijaya Kumar, Overseer of the opposite parties' office came to the complainant's premises and took the meter and broken the seal of the same, which caused the rain water to leak inside the meter. The disputed bill is prepared witout any basis, the action of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to issue a new bill after setting aside the bill dated 2/2/2006 and to pay cost of the complaint. 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that a bill of Rs.14,224/- was issued to the complainant on 28/2/2006 for actual consumption of water as per Regulations, that the payment of minimum water charges does not mean that there is no arrears with regard to payment of water charges, that the bill was issued for excess quantity of water consumed by the consumer, that the meter reading recorded on 9/1/2006 is 4124kl and that on 16/2/2006 is 4187kl and that on 23/2/2006 is 4197kl and that the average monthly consumption upto 9/1/2006 is 52 kl. Five persons are resding in the family, that the water tap is fitted in the outside area and there is no compound wall for the house, thereby there are ample chances for consumption of water from this tap by the persons residing nearby. The possibility of meter to run in reverse is quiet impossible, unless it is rotated to reverse by somebody, that the consumer has tried to damage the meter in order to fabricate the evidence in his favour. Mr. Vijaya Kumar was directed by Assistant Engineer to take reading and report the condition of water meter on 22/5/2006 and he reported that the party has purposefully tampered the meter. On 31/5/2006, Assistant Executive Engineer directly visited the site and confirmed the purposeful tampering of water meter by the party. There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. There is adequate supply of water in the area. After giving enough notice and completing the legal formalities the water connection was disconnected. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the consumer bill dated 2/2/2006 cancelled? Whether opposite parties are liable to install new water meter? Whether complainant is entitled to get cost?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. One witness as PW2 has filed affidavit. Opposite parties did not file affidavit or documents. Complainant has not been cross examined.
5. Points (i) to (iii) : It has been the case of the complainant that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.VTA 533, that he had remitted water charge upto 1/06 without default, that on 2/2/2006 complainant had received a consumer bill for Rs.14,224/- from the opposite parties, that till the issuance of the said bill there were no dues, that complainant had never used the water as stated in the disputed bill and that the meter installed in the complainant's premises was faulty. It has also been the case of the complainant that complainant had lodged a complaint before the 3rd opposite party, upon which the officials from the opposite parties' office came to the complainant's house to inspect water connection but there was no water supply at that time and on inspection of the water meter it was found defective which was informed to the complainant by the officials. Further complainant says that on 24/5/2006, one Mr. Vijaya Kumar, Overseer of opposite parties' office came to the complainant's premises and took the meter and broken the seal of the same, which caused rain water to leak inside the meter. Ext.P1 is the consumer's meter card, wherein the initial reading is 500, the date of connection is 8/4/1999. On a perusal of Ext.P1, it is found that meter reading is not taken after the installation of the meter. Ext.P2 is the Provisional Invoice Card, As per Ext.P2 the monthly amount to be remitted is Rs.22/- and connection is under domestic category. On a perusal of payment schedule printed overleaf of Ext.P2, only on two occasions, Rs.22/- per month is seen remitted. Ext.P3 is the consumer bill dated 2/2/2006 for Rs.14,224/-. As per Ext.P3 closing meter reading is 4124, arrears from 5/99 to 11/2005 Rs. 13,825/-, adjustment amount is Rs.202/- + Rs.197/-, total arrears is Rs.14,224/-, status of the meter is not mentioned in Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the copy of the letter addressed to 3rd opposite party by the complainant. Ext.P5 is the copy of the letter addressed to the opposite parties. Ext.P6 is the copy of the letter addressed to the opposite parties. Ext.P7 is the copy of the advocate notice dated 6/6/2006 addressed to opposite parties. Ext.P8 is the copy of the certificate of posting. Ext.P9 is the receipt dated 17/1/2006 issued by the opposite parties. As per Ext.P9 complainant has remitted Rs.22/- against 1/2006. Opposite parties did not file affidavit to substantiate the contentions in the version, nor did opposite parties furnish any documents. According to opposite parties, the meter reading recorded on 9/1/2006 is 4124kl, on 16/2/2006 4187kl and on 23/2/2006 4197kl and that the average monthly consumption upto 9/2006 is 52 kl. From 9/1/2006 to 16/2/2006 the monthly consumption is 59kl and from 23/2/2006 the consumption is 32kl. It is pertinent to note that as per Ext.P1, consumer's meter card nowhere, in it meter reading is seen recorded by the opposite parties from the date of installation to the date of filing of this complaint. The specific case of the complainant is that nobody from opposite parties' office came to complainant's premises for meter reading. As per provision of the Water Supply Regulation, meter reading has to be taken once in six months and actual amount due has to be ascertained on reading meter and necessary adjustment bill showing amounts due to the consumer has to be sent once in six months. On a perusal of Ext.P1 consumer's meter card, it is seen that meter reading not recorded on any date, if the meter reader inspected the premises and took meter reading at regular intervals as prescribed in the Act, he would definitely have recorded the same in Ext.P1. Non recording of the meter reading in Ext.P1 would indicate that no meter reading was taken by the opposite parties during the prescribed period. Further the averment in the version that the meter reading recorded on 9/1/2006 is 4124kl and that of 16/2/2006 is 4187kl and that of 23/2/2006 is 4197kl is unbelievable since neither they were entered in Ext. P1 nor were they substantiated by opposite parties by cogent and clinching evidence. It is highly improbable to believe that opposite parties, who had not taken meter reading on meter for a long period since the installation of water meter, has taken meter reading all of a sudden three times within two months. Further complainant's submission is that the said meter in dispute is defective, and that on 24/5/2006 one Mr. Vijaya Kumar, the Overseer in the opposite parties' office, who, in enmity with this complainant for long years, had come to complainant's house under the pretext of inspection of water meter and removed the water meter and destroyed the seal therein which caused the rain water to drop inside the meter. The complainant has not been cross examined by opposite parties, nor did opposite parties file counter affidavit to prove otherwise. Hence the affidavit filed by the complainant remains uncontroverted. Opposite parties had no evidence to substantiate their version. Taking into consideration of totality of circumstance we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met, if complainant is permitted to install a new water meter upon which new bill is to be raised on the basis of average consumption for three months, after deduction of the amounts already remitted by the complainant to opposite parties.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The bills dated 2/2/2006 (Ext.P3) issued by the opposite parties is hereby cancelled. Opposite parties shall permit the complainant to install a new meter at complainant's own cost and shall raise fresh bill on the basis of average actual consumption of water for three months, shown on the new meter, for the whole period retrospectively from 5/99, after adjusting the amounts already remitted by the complainant towards water charge during the said period. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstance 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 31st day of August, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
C.C.No.237/2006 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: PW1 : A. Vincent II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Consumer's meter card No.SB-268602 P2 : Provisional invoice card of consumer No.VTA/533 P3 : Consumer bill No.9 dated 2/2/06 for Rs.14,224/- P4 : Copy of letter issued to the 3rd opposite party by the complainant. P5 : Copy of letter issued to 3rd opposite party by the complainant. P6 : " "
P7 : Copy of advocate notice dated 6/6/2006 issued to opposite party. P8 : Copy of certificate of posting. P9 : Receipt No.AE-391867 dated 17/1/2006 for Rs.22/-.
Opposite parties' witness: NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | |
