BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 503/2003 Filed on 22.12.2003

Dated : 15.06.2010

Complainant:

Sreekantan Nair for and on behalf of K. Chellamma, Aswathy, T.C 17/1989/3, Palace Junction, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. K.K. Vijayan)

Opposite parties:

1. The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Public Works Division, East Sub Division, PTP Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

   (By adv. Santhamma Thomas & V.S. Hareendranath)

This O.P having been heard on 30.04.2010, the Forum on 15.06.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. 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. KMA/2900/D under domestic category, that complainant remitted water charges upto 10/97 at the rate of Rs. 31/- per month, that thereafter complainant vacated the house and did not consume any water till the end of the year 2000, that during 2000-01 complainant sold her property to her son Sreekantan Nair. From 2000 onwards water consumption has been below 50 KL and that opposite party issued a bill dated 13.10.2003 for Rs. 11,297/-. Complainant filed a complaint before the Water Authority stating that water was not consumed for the period of 3 years from 1998 to 2000 and meter was not in working condition. Opposite party did not take any action in response to the said complaint. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to raise correct bill and not to disconnect water connection.

Opposite parties filed version contending that Smt. Chellamma is the owner of the consumer No. KMA/2900/D, that the complainant Sreekantan Nair has no locus standi to file the complaint, that Smt. Chellamma paid her water charges only upto 10/97 at the PIC rate of Rs. 31/- per month. Opposite party issued bill for Rs. 11,297/- for a period of 6 years that consumer was not in the habit of paying her water charges regularly, that opposite party did not know whether the complainant vacated the house from 1998 to 2000, that if charges are not paid as per the provisions of Water Supply Regulations, opposite parties can very well cut off the water supply to the customer. Complainant did not file any application to the opposite party to disconnect water connection from 1998 to 2000, that the fact regarding the non-working of the meter was informed to the complainant, but complainant had not taken any steps to replace the faulty meter with new one. Opposite party assessed water charges by taking average consumption as 51.2 KL. The relief prayed for in the complaint is not allowable. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a modified bill?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs?

    

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P5. In rebuttal, opposite has filed affidavit. Opposite party did not furnish any documents.

Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, Smt. Chellamma is the consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. KMA/2900/D. Ext. P1 is the Power of Attorney executed by Smt. Chellamma in favour of the complainant. Ext. P2 is the copy of the provisional invoice card. As per Ext. P2 connection category is domestic, Smt. Chellamma is the consumer, monthly amount to be remitted is Rs. 31/- from 06/94. On perusal of Ext. P2 there was no arrears due upto 11/95. Admittedly, complainant remitted water charges as per the provisional invoice card upto 10/97. Ext. P3 is the consumer bill dated 13.10.2003 for Rs. 11,297/-. On perusal of Ext. P3 it is seen that average consumption of water assessed as 51.2 KL, while status of meter mentioned as not working and meter readings not recorded. Ext. P4 series include receipts dated 14.10.1996, 14.01.1997, 12.02.1997, and 22.04.1997. Ext. P5 is the notice addressed to Chellamma by opposite party directing her to remit Rs. 11,689/- within 7 days from 12.12.2003. Opposite parties did not produce any documents in support of their version. Complainant has been cross examined by opposite party. In his cross examination when a suggestion was made to him to the effect that whether complainant had applied for temporary disconnection during the period for which exclusion of water charge claimed, complainant deposed that 'No'. Complainant further added that opposite party did not issue any notice to replace the faulty meter with new one. Complainant denied the suggestion that bill was prepared as per regulations and as per meter readings. As per evidence available on record it is not clear from which date onwards the water meter became faulty. Opposite party has no case that they issued any bill prior to 10/03. As per Regulations, meter reading has to be taken once in every six months and adjustment bill if any is to be issued then and there, but nothing was complied in this case. The allegation raised by the opposite party is that complainant is having no locus standi to file this complaint since connection stands in the name of Smt. Chellamma. Complainant did not produce any title deed executed in favour of him by the said Chellamma. In Ext. P1 Power of Attorney, it is seen stated by Smt. Chellamma that she has executed a document vide No. 1478/01 in favour of Mr. Sreekantan Nair, the complainant. Further there is no point in dispute that Mr. Sreekantan Nair is not the son of Smt. Chellamma. As a son of Smt. Chellamma, we find complainant is the beneficiary and as such he is a consumer of the opposite parties. There is no material to show that complainant vacated the said building and not consumed any water till the end of 2000. In view of the affidavit filed by the complainant and documents available on record, we think justice will be well met if complainant is directed to remit water charges on the basis of 15 KL per month from 06/97 to 10/03. If the meter is still faulty, it is at liberty of the complainant to apply for replacement of faulty meter with new one on complainant's own costs. The action of the opposite party in no taking meter reading once in 6 months amounts to deficiency in service.

In the result, complaint is allowed. The bill dated 13.10.2003 and notice dated 12.12.2003 issued by opposite parties are hereby cancelled. Opposite parties are directed to raise fresh bill on the basis of 15 KL per month from 06/97 to 12/03. There is no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Complainant shall remit the new bill amount to be issued within one month from the date of issuance. Till that date, the Interim Order not to disconnect water connection is made absolute.

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 15^th day of June 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 503/2003

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Sreekantan Nair

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Power of Attorney executed by Smt. Chellamma in favour of

the complainant.

P2 - Copy of the provisional invoice card.

P3 - Consumer bill dated 13.10.2003 for Rs. 11,297/-.

P4 - Series includes receipts dated 14.10.1996, 14.01.1997,

12.02.1997 and 22.04.1997

P5 - Original notice dated 12.12.2003.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb