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. 6/2002 Filed on 4/1/2002
Dated: 16..02..2009
Complainant:
B. Chellamma, Janani Vilasom, Kulavikkonam, Nedumangad – P.O., Nedumangad. (By Adv. Kovalam B. Ajithkumar)
Opposite parties:
The Kerala Water Authority, represented by its Managing Director Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Water Supply Sub Division, Nedumangad.
( By Adv. Rajesh. R) 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 17..11..2003 the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..01..2009, the Forum on 16..02..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties with consumer No.NDD/0122. The complainant has been consuming water from the said connection to the utmost minimum. A provisional invoice card was issued to remit Rs.14/- per month. Opposite parties realised an amount of Rs. 882/- towards water charge from the complainant till 1991. Thereafter the tariff rate was increased from Rs.14/- to Rs.20/- per month. On 8/12/1998 the complainant remitted Rs.1,920/- with opposite parties as per the demands made by the opposite parties. From 1991 onwards the water meter installed by the opposite parties was not working and as soon as the said fact was detected the same was duly reported to the opposite parties and complainant requested the opposite parties to change the meter, but opposite parties did not do so. On 16/7/2001 the complainant was served with a notice dated NIL directing him to remit Rs. 5,830/- towards the arrears of water charges within 7 days from the receipt of the notice. The notice further threatened that the non-payment of the said amount would result in cutting off water supply to the said premises. Immediately the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and asked for an explanation of the said illegal notice. The 2nd opposite party did not explain. Thereafter complainant sent a complaint to this Forum. Opposite parties illegally and unlawfully cut off the water connection to the premises. Hence this complaint to reinstate the water connection to the premises and to recover Rs.10,000/- towards compensation from the opposite parties and to declare the cut off notice issued by the opposite parties on 16/7/2001 and the action taken on 23/10/2001 on the basis of the same illegal.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that from 1986 to 1991 the water charges were collected by Nedumangadu Municipality as per their records. Thereafter the records transferred from Nedumangadu Municpality to the Office of the opposite parties. Water charge was revised from Rs.14/- to Rs.79/- as per rate revision made by the Government. On 15/4/1997 a cut off notice was issued to the complainant for remitting the arrear water charges. But the consumer did not remit any amount. On 12/1998 another notice was issued and complainant remitted Rs.1,920/- against the arrear water charges of Rs. 5,740/-. From the records transferred from Nedumangadu Municipality it was recorded that consumer was using 28kl water per month. Water charges during the period was Rs.14/-. Thereafter it was revised to Rs.79/-. Opposite parties did not receive any complaints regarding the non-working of water meter, replacing of faulty meter is to be done by the consumer himself. Hence there is no negligence from opposite parties. On 12/7/2001 a cut off notice was served to the complainant for remitting the arrear water charges within a period of 7 days. The complainant did not comeforward. The water connection was disconnected on 23/10/2001 after giving ample time for the remittance of arrear water charges. The connection can be restored only after remitting the water charges dues. The action taken is only on good faith. 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 cut off notice quashed? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Reliefs and compensation?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and marked Exts. P1 to P5. In rebuttal, opposite parties have filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not file any documents.
5. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties with consumer No.NDD/0122. It has been the case of the complainant that complainant had taken water connection in the year 1986, that from September 1986 to November 1991, water charge was at the rate of Rs.14/- per month, and opposite parties realized a sum of Rs. 882/- on that amount, that thereafter the complainant remitted a sum of Rs.1,920/- on 8/12/1998 towards water charges at the the rate of Rs.20/- per month from 11/1991 to 12/1998, that the amount paid by the consumer was higher compared to the actual consumption of water and that from 1991 onwards the water meter installed by the opposite parties was not working and the same was brought to the notice of the opposite parties but opposite parties did not do anything positivity. It has also been the case of the complainant, complainant was served with a notice dated nil demanding to remit arrears amount of Rs.5,830/- within 7 days from the receipt of notice, failing which would result in cutting off water connection. It has been rebutted by the opposite parties submitting that from 1986 to 1991 the water charges were collected by the Nedumangadu Municipality and the records regarding bill and collection upto 1991 was not available with opposite parties. That the water tariff revised from Rs.14/- to Rs.29/- as per revision made by the Government, that on 15/4/1997 a cut off notice was issued to the complainant for remitting the arrear water charges, that the consumer did not remit any amount, that on 12/98 another notice was issued and the consumer remitted Rs.1,920/- against the arrear water charges of Rs.5,740/- upto 12/98. Submission by the opposite parties is that from the records transferred from Municipality it is recorded that the consumer was using 28kl per month and as per revision water charge was Rs.79/- per month. It is also urged by the opposite parties that no complaint from the consumer was received in opposite parties' officer regarding the non-working of the water meter, and that according to the Water Supply Act, the replacing of the water meter is to be done by the consumer. Opposite parties submitted that a cut off notice was served to the consumer on 12/7/2001 to remit arrear amount and that the water connection was disconnected on 23/10/2001 after giving ample time for remittance of arrear water charges and that the connection can be returned after remitting water charges dues. Ext.P1 is the copy of the cut off notice dated nil issued by the opposie parties to the complainant to pay arrear water charge. Ext.P2 is the letter addressed to the 2nd opposite party requesting him to issue a correct bill on the basis of actual meter reading on installation of new water meter. On a perusal of Ext.P2, it is remarked by the 2nd opposite party that sanction of changing the water meter can be given after remitting the dues. Ext.P3 is the copy of the complaint dated 26/7/2001 sent by the complainant to CDRF. Ext.P4 is the postal receipt. Ext.P5 is the acknowledgment card. In her affidavit, complainant stated that on 7/1/2002 this Forum directed her to remit Rs.1,800/- to opposite parties and since opposite parties refused to accept the DD for Rs.1,800/-, the same was deposited before this Forum and opposite parties was directed to reconnect the connection on or before 31/1/2002 and accordingly the reconnection was given by the opposite parties and thereafter a new meter was installed. As per Provision of Water Supply Regulations, meter reading must be taken once in six months and on the basis of meter reading adjustment bill should be issued to the consumer. Opposite parties did not produce any documents showing that meter reading was taken as per Provisions of Water Supply Regulations, nor did opposite parties disclose the mode of assessment of the figure stated in Ext.P1 nor did opposite parties issue the adjustment bill. Without disclosing the details of meter reading and mode of assessment or calculation, opposite parties had issued the cut off notice in violation of the Provisions of the Water Supply Regulation, which deserves to be quashed. The action of the opposite parties would definitely amount to deficiency in service. The interim order restoring water connection and replacement of water meter is to be made absolute.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The cut off notice (Ext.P1) issued to the complainant is hereby quashed. Opposite parties are at liberty to raise fresh bill on the basis of meter readings on the replaced meter from 24/1/2002 onwards after reduction of the amount of Rs.1,800/- already remitted as per order dated 7/1/2002 and other amounts if any remitted thereafter by the complainant. The interim order restoring water connection and replacement of water meter is made absolute. There will be no order as to compensation and cost in facts and circumstances of the case.
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 16th day of February, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No. 6/2002
APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of cut off notice to the consumer of A/c No.NDD- 122 P2 : Copy of letter issued by the complainant P3 : Copy of complaint dated 26/7/2001
P4 : Postal receipt dated 26/7/2001
P5 : Acknowledgment card.
Opposite parties' witness : NIL
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
O.P. No. 6/2002 Filed on 4/1/2002
Dated: 16..02..2009
Complainant:
B. Chellamma, Janani Vilasom, Kulavikkonam, Nedumangad – P.O., Nedumangad. (By Adv. Kovalam B. Ajithkumar)
Opposite parties:
The Kerala Water Authority, represented by its Managing Director Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Water Supply Sub Division, Nedumangad.
( By Adv. Rajesh. R) 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 17..11..2003 the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..01..2009, the Forum on 16..02..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties with consumer No.NDD/0122. The complainant has been consuming water from the said connection to the utmost minimum. A provisional invoice card was issued to remit Rs.14/- per month. Opposite parties realised an amount of Rs. 882/- towards water charge from the complainant till 1991. Thereafter the tariff rate was increased from Rs.14/- to Rs.20/- per month. On 8/12/1998 the complainant remitted Rs.1,920/- with opposite parties as per the demands made by the opposite parties. From 1991 onwards the water meter installed by the opposite parties was not working and as soon as the said fact was detected the same was duly reported to the opposite parties and complainant requested the opposite parties to change the meter, but opposite parties did not do so. On 16/7/2001 the complainant was served with a notice dated NIL directing him to remit Rs. 5,830/- towards the arrears of water charges within 7 days from the receipt of the notice. The notice further threatened that the non-payment of the said amount would result in cutting off water supply to the said premises. Immediately the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and asked for an explanation of the said illegal notice. The 2nd opposite party did not explain. Thereafter complainant sent a complaint to this Forum. Opposite parties illegally and unlawfully cut off the water connection to the premises. Hence this complaint to reinstate the water connection to the premises and to recover Rs.10,000/- towards compensation from the opposite parties and to declare the cut off notice issued by the opposite parties on 16/7/2001 and the action taken on 23/10/2001 on the basis of the same illegal.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that from 1986 to 1991 the water charges were collected by Nedumangadu Municipality as per their records. Thereafter the records transferred from Nedumangadu Municpality to the Office of the opposite parties. Water charge was revised from Rs.14/- to Rs.79/- as per rate revision made by the Government. On 15/4/1997 a cut off notice was issued to the complainant for remitting the arrear water charges. But the consumer did not remit any amount. On 12/1998 another notice was issued and complainant remitted Rs.1,920/- against the arrear water charges of Rs. 5,740/-. From the records transferred from Nedumangadu Municipality it was recorded that consumer was using 28kl water per month. Water charges during the period was Rs.14/-. Thereafter it was revised to Rs.79/-. Opposite parties did not receive any complaints regarding the non-working of water meter, replacing of faulty meter is to be done by the consumer himself. Hence there is no negligence from opposite parties. On 12/7/2001 a cut off notice was served to the complainant for remitting the arrear water charges within a period of 7 days. The complainant did not comeforward. The water connection was disconnected on 23/10/2001 after giving ample time for the remittance of arrear water charges. The connection can be restored only after remitting the water charges dues. The action taken is only on good faith. 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 cut off notice quashed? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Reliefs and compensation?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and marked Exts. P1 to P5. In rebuttal, opposite parties have filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not file any documents.
5. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties with consumer No.NDD/0122. It has been the case of the complainant that complainant had taken water connection in the year 1986, that from September 1986 to November 1991, water charge was at the rate of Rs.14/- per month, and opposite parties realized a sum of Rs. 882/- on that amount, that thereafter the complainant remitted a sum of Rs.1,920/- on 8/12/1998 towards water charges at the the rate of Rs.20/- per month from 11/1991 to 12/1998, that the amount paid by the consumer was higher compared to the actual consumption of water and that from 1991 onwards the water meter installed by the opposite parties was not working and the same was brought to the notice of the opposite parties but opposite parties did not do anything positivity. It has also been the case of the complainant, complainant was served with a notice dated nil demanding to remit arrears amount of Rs.5,830/- within 7 days from the receipt of notice, failing which would result in cutting off water connection. It has been rebutted by the opposite parties submitting that from 1986 to 1991 the water charges were collected by the Nedumangadu Municipality and the records regarding bill and collection upto 1991 was not available with opposite parties. That the water tariff revised from Rs.14/- to Rs.29/- as per revision made by the Government, that on 15/4/1997 a cut off notice was issued to the complainant for remitting the arrear water charges, that the consumer did not remit any amount, that on 12/98 another notice was issued and the consumer remitted Rs.1,920/- against the arrear water charges of Rs.5,740/- upto 12/98. Submission by the opposite parties is that from the records transferred from Municipality it is recorded that the consumer was using 28kl per month and as per revision water charge was Rs.79/- per month. It is also urged by the opposite parties that no complaint from the consumer was received in opposite parties' officer regarding the non-working of the water meter, and that according to the Water Supply Act, the replacing of the water meter is to be done by the consumer. Opposite parties submitted that a cut off notice was served to the consumer on 12/7/2001 to remit arrear amount and that the water connection was disconnected on 23/10/2001 after giving ample time for remittance of arrear water charges and that the connection can be returned after remitting water charges dues. Ext.P1 is the copy of the cut off notice dated nil issued by the opposie parties to the complainant to pay arrear water charge. Ext.P2 is the letter addressed to the 2nd opposite party requesting him to issue a correct bill on the basis of actual meter reading on installation of new water meter. On a perusal of Ext.P2, it is remarked by the 2nd opposite party that sanction of changing the water meter can be given after remitting the dues. Ext.P3 is the copy of the complaint dated 26/7/2001 sent by the complainant to CDRF. Ext.P4 is the postal receipt. Ext.P5 is the acknowledgment card. In her affidavit, complainant stated that on 7/1/2002 this Forum directed her to remit Rs.1,800/- to opposite parties and since opposite parties refused to accept the DD for Rs.1,800/-, the same was deposited before this Forum and opposite parties was directed to reconnect the connection on or before 31/1/2002 and accordingly the reconnection was given by the opposite parties and thereafter a new meter was installed. As per Provision of Water Supply Regulations, meter reading must be taken once in six months and on the basis of meter reading adjustment bill should be issued to the consumer. Opposite parties did not produce any documents showing that meter reading was taken as per Provisions of Water Supply Regulations, nor did opposite parties disclose the mode of assessment of the figure stated in Ext.P1 nor did opposite parties issue the adjustment bill. Without disclosing the details of meter reading and mode of assessment or calculation, opposite parties had issued the cut off notice in violation of the Provisions of the Water Supply Regulation, which deserves to be quashed. The action of the opposite parties would definitely amount to deficiency in service. The interim order restoring water connection and replacement of water meter is to be made absolute.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The cut off notice (Ext.P1) issued to the complainant is hereby quashed. Opposite parties are at liberty to raise fresh bill on the basis of meter readings on the replaced meter from 24/1/2002 onwards after reduction of the amount of Rs.1,800/- already remitted as per order dated 7/1/2002 and other amounts if any remitted thereafter by the complainant. The interim order restoring water connection and replacement of water meter is made absolute. There will be no order as to compensation and cost in facts and circumstances of the case.
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 16th day of February, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No. 6/2002
APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of cut off notice to the consumer of A/c No.NDD- 122 P2 : Copy of letter issued by the complainant P3 : Copy of complaint dated 26/7/2001
P4 : Postal receipt dated 26/7/2001
P5 : Acknowledgment card.
Opposite parties' witness : NIL
Opposite parties' documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
