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. 448/2002 Filed on 25/10/2002 Dated: 15..05..2010 Complainant: B. Sasikumar, G.V. Sadanam, Avanavancherry, Attingal. (By Adv. Anayara Shaji)
Opposite parties: Kerala Water Authority – represented by its Managing Director, Kerala Water Works, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Water Supply Division, Attingal. The Asst. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Water Supply Division, Attingal.
(By Advs. C. Sasidharan Pillai & 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 05..03..2004, 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 16..04..2010, the Forum on 15..05..2010 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 vide consumer No. 3454, under domestic category and consumer No. 1893 under non-domestic category, that for consumer No.3454 complainant was directed to pay an amont of Rs. 34/- per month from 4/99 onwards, that complainant had paid water chargs as per invoice upto 8/01, that for consumer No.1893, complainant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.102/- per month from 4/99 onwards, and he had paid the same upto 8/01. It is submitted by the complainant that he was never served with any notice showing the consumption of water and at no point of time he was given any adjustment bill by the opposite parties, that when complainant went to opposite parties' Office for payment of water charges for the period from 9/2001 to 9/2002, opposite parties orally demanded with him that he had to pay an amount of Rs. 35,724/- towards water charges in consumer No.1893 and Rs. 8,785/- in consumer No. 3454 and Officers of the opposite parties did not receive the payments offered by the complainant, that on 7/10/2002 complainant filed complaints with the 2nd opposite party stating his grievances and requesting to accept the actual amount due from him, for which no reply was given by the 2nd opposite party, that on 22/10/2002 opposite parties' officials came to the premises of the complainant and disconnected the water supply to consumer No. 1893 and dismantled the water meter. The said disconnection was done by opposite parties without giving any additional bill or notice. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to restore the water connection to consumer No. 1893, to allow the complainant to pay water charge as per the invoices issued to him and to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation along with cost of the proceedings. 2. Opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, that complainant have a non-domestic and domestic water connecion, that at the time of water connection, Provisional Invoice Card was issued to the consumer No.1893 and consumer No.3454, that consumption was exceeded the minimum in the case of non-domestic connection and exceeded 2o to 42kl in the case of domestic connection, that consumer remitted minimum charges for both connections upto 8/01, that Provisional Invoice Card issued is only provisional subject to the adjustment after arriving the actual consumption, that opposite parties issued arrear bill for the period from 10/91 to 9/02 for an amount of Rs. 35,734/- to consumer No.1893 and an amount of Rs. 9,303/- for the same period to consumer No. 3454. It is further submitted in the version that the water meter of the consumer No. 1893 became faulty during 1993, that the faulty meter has to be replaced by the consumer at his own risk and cost by the permission of opposite parties, but consumer never cared to replace the faulty meter, that if the water meter is not working, as per rules, subsequent water charges will be collected on the basis of average monthly consumption during the working period of meter, that the average monthly consumption calculated was 58kl per month and the arrear bill was prepared accordingly, for the period from 10/91 to 9/02 and thereby the amount of Rs. 35,734/-. The arrear bill for Rs. 9,303/- was prepared as per the actual consumption based on the meter reading in consumer No.3454, that installments can be permitted if complainant applies for the same, consumer has not remitted even a part of the arrear bill and not replaced the faulty meter and there was dues of 14 monthly installments. The non-domestic water connection was disconnected on 22/10/02. Adjustment bill and disconnection notice was issued to the consumer and there is no violation of natural justice on the part of opposite parties.. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
3. The points that arise for consideration are: Whether complainant is entitled to restoration of water connection to consumer No. 1893? Whether complainant is liable to pay the amount demanded by opposite parties? Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether complainant is entitled to compensation and cost?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has marked Exts. P1 to P7. In rebuttal, 2nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit and Exts D1 & D2 were marked. 4. Points (i) to (iv) : Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.3454 under domestic category and consumer No. 1893 under non-domestic category. It has been the specific case of the complainant that he had remitted amount upto 8/01 as per invoice card. It has also been the case of the complainant that he was never served with any notice showing the consumption of water and at no point of time he was given any adjustment bill, that consumption in domestic connection is very low, it was in October 2002 that opposite parties orally demanded a sum of Rs. 35,724/- towards water charges in consumer No.1893 and Rs. 8,785/- in consumer No.3454. Opposite parties did not receive the payments offered by the complainant, on 7/10/2002 complainant filed complaints with the opposite parties stating his grievances and requesting to accept the actual amount, but quite strangely on 22/10/2002 opposite parties disconnected the water supply to consumer No. 1893 and dismantled the water meter. Ext. P1 is the receipt dated 22/08/01 issued by opposite parties to consmer No. 1893 for Rs. 1,016/-. Ext. P2 is the Provisional Invoice Card issued to consumer No.1893. As per Ext. P2, connection comes under non-domestic category and monthly amount to be remitted is Rs. 102/- from 4/99. It is pertinent to note that no arrear amount mentioned therein at the time of issuance of Ext. P2. A perusal of payment schedule printed overleaf of Ext. P2 reveals that complainant has remitted minimum water charges upto 8/01. Ext. P3 is the receipt dated 13/8/01 issued to consumer No. 3454 for Rs. 463/-. Ext. P4 is the Provisional Invoice Card to consumer No. 3454 under domestic category, monthly amount to be remitted is stated as Rs. 34/- per month from 4/99, on top of the Provisional Invoice Card Rs. 8,785/- is recorded while nothing is seen recorded in the arrear column. A perusal of payment schedule printed overleaf of Ext. P4 reveals that complainant had remitted minimum water charges upto 8/01. Ext. P5 is the consumer's meter card to consumer No. 1893. On a perusal of Ext. P5 it is seen that meter reading is recorded therein upto 9/95. Ext. P6 is the copy of the letter addressed to the 2nd opposite party by the consumer requesting the opposite party to receive the water charge as per invoice card. Ext. P7 is the postal receipts dated 7/10/02. Ext. D1 series are copies of consumer personal ledger. On perusal of Ext. D1 series it is seen that meter reading is recorded under consumer No. 1893 upto 9/95. On 2/91 meter reading recorded is 1007 kl, 1016kl on 9/91, 1479kl on 5/92, thereafter meter reading remained as 1482kl upto 10/92. The connection to consumer No.1893 was disconnected on 22/10/02. As far as consumer No. 3454 is concerned meter reading is recorded upto 7/08. On 10/07 meter reading recorded was 7983kl, on 2/08, 4/08 & 6/08 it is seen stated 'locked' in meter reading column.On 7/08 meter reading recorded is 8178kl. Opposite parties have furnished carbon copies of bill dated 10/10/2002 for Rs. 35,734/- and bill dated 8/10/2002 for Rs.9,303/-, which are on the records. It is the specific case of the complainant that complainant was never served with additional bill or notice prior to disconnection of water connection to consumer No. 1893. On perusal of Ext. P4 it is seen that the amount indicated in Provisional Invoice Card for monthly payment is only provisional. The actual amount due will be ascertained on reading the meters and necessary adjustment bill showing amounts due will be sent to consumer once in six months. Ext. P1 personal ledger shows that in consumer No. 1893 meter reading is recorded from 2/91 to 9/95. As per Ext. P5 consumer's meter card the first meter reading is seen taken on 12/85 and meter reading recorded as 110800, thereafter meter reading recorded on 9/95 as 1481kl, there are discrepancies in consumption in Exts. D1 series and Ext. P5. As per Ext. D1 series meter reading is seen recorded on 2/91, 9/91, 5/92, 10/92, 6/93, 1/95 & 9/95 whereras in Ext. P5 first reading was on 12/85 and next reading was on 9/95. It is pertinent to point out that consumer meter card was issued wherein there is provision to record date, meter reading, consumption, initials of meter reader and remarks of inspecting officer. No remarks is seen stated in Ext. P5 by the inspecting officer, nor dates of meter reading included as stated in Ext. D1 series. Thereby it may cast doubt over the meter reading recorded by the meter reader in Ext. D1. Further, there is no material to show that opposite party has issued adjusted bill then and there, the issuance of adjustment bill against the provisions of Water Supply Regulations would definitely saddle the complainant with huge amount. It is argued by the opposite party that the adjustment bill was prepared on the basis of meter reading while the meter was working. It is not clear from the affidavit and version how opposite party arrived the average monthly consumption as 58kl per month. There is no material to show that the meter was faulty and complainant was directed to replace the same with new one with the consent of the opposite party. It is the duty of the opposite party to inform the consumer to replace the faulty meter, if it is faulty. Opposite party has not done anything. At present, admittedly connection to consumer No.1893 stands disconnected. The argument of the complainant that he will be allowed to pay water charges as per PIC issued to him is not sustainable, since there is chance for variation in water consumption and there is a provision for issue of adjustment bill on the basis of actual meter reading. It is pertinent to note that as per Ext. D1 opposite parties' ledger, on 2/91 meter reading was 1007kl, which rose to 1016kl on 9/91, which rose to 1479kl on 5/92, thereafter meter reading remained as 1482kl upto 9/95. Thereafter no further meter reading is seen recorded in Ext. D1. It is evident from the pattern of the said meter reading that meter was faulty from 5/92 onwards. There is no material to show that opposite party had intimated the consumer to replace the faulty meter with a new meter. Further, average consumption between 2/91 and 9/91 is 1016 – 1007kl = 9/7 = 1.2kl whereas the average consumption between 9/91 and 5/92 is 1479kl – 1016kl = 463/8 = 57kl. Thereafter from 5/92 to 10/92, average consumption remained as 1482 – 1479 = 3/5 – 0.6kl. In view of the above fixing of monthly rate based on average consumption of water for any, previous 6 months will never meet ends of justice. At this juncure, we think average consumption from 2/91 to 10/92, if taken as base, which will meet ends of justice that is 1482 – 1007 = 475/21 = 22.1kl = 22kl. Opposite parties never claimed any amount till the issue of Ext. P2 Provisional Invoice Card (that is 4/99) nor mentioned any arrears therein. Inview of the above, we think justice will be well met if complainant is directed to remit water charges based 22kl from 10/91 to 9/2002 in consumer No. 1893. As for consumer No. 3454 is concerned, no uniform pattern of consumption is recorded in Ext.C1 series furnished by opposite parties. Opposite party has produced carbon copies of the bill No. 61 & 63 dated 8/10/2002 and 10/10/2002 details of calculation seen recorded therein. Bill No.61 related to consumer No. 3454 is for Rs.9,303/-, which is beset with those recorded in Ext. D1 series. Complainant has no case that water meter in consumer No. 3454 was faulty. In view of the above, we think complainant is liable to pay the said amount. Delay in issuing the said bills would definitely saddle the consumer with huge amount, to the extent of which, there is deficiency on the part of opposite parties, for which opposite party is liable to pay compensation to complainant. In the result, complaint is allowed. The additional demand claimed by opposite parties vide bill No. 63 dated 10/10/2002 in consumer No.1893 is cancelled, while additional demand claimed by opposite parties vide bill No. 61 dated 8/10/2002 in consumer No. 3454 for Rs.9,303/- is upheld. Complainant is directed to pay water charges in consumer No.1893, on the basis 22kl per month from 10/91 to 9/02, after adjusting the amount already remitted by the complainant during the said period. Opposite party shall pay Rs.3,000/- towards compensation to complainant. On acceptance of the said water charges in consumer No.1893, opposite party shall restore the said water connection on application to be moved by the complainant. 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 15th day of May, 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad. O.P.No. 448/2002 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness : NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Original receipt dated 22/8/2001 P2 : Original Provisional Invoice Card P3 : " receipt dated 13/08/2001 P4 : " Provisional Invoice Card P5 : " Consumer's Meter card P6 : Copy of the letter addressed to the 2nd opposite party P7 : Postal receipt dated 7/10/2002 III. Opposite parties' witness: DW1 : A. Somarajan IV. Opposite parties' documents: D1 : Series are copies of consumer personal ledger. D2 : Copy of Meter Reading Book.
PRESIDENT
| | [HONABLE MR. JUSTICE President] President[HONORABLE MR. Sri G. Sivaprasad] PRESIDENT[ Smt. Beena Kumari. A] Member | |
