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. 299/2001 Dated: 30..05..2009
Complainant: K. Jayakrishnan, T.C.25/2950, Vanchiyoor Village, Trivandrum. (By Adv. P.A. Dev)
Opposite parties:
Kerala Water Authority, represented by its Managing Director, Trivandrum. The Assistant Engineer, Central Sub Division, Section II, Pattoor, Kerala Water Authority, Trivandrum.
(By Adv. C. Sasidharan Pillai)
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 06..02..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 30..04..2009, the Forum on 30..05..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. PCH 1907/ND, that the complainant had paid the water charge fixed by opposite parties regularly, and that complainant received a notice No.9 dated 7/7/2001 from the 2nd opposite party demanding payment of Rs.20,339/- towards water charges, that it was informed by the opposite parties that the water supply will be cut off at the expense of the complainant, if he fails to pay the water charges within 7 days, that no bill has been issued to the complainant as shown in the said notice. No details regarding the calculation of the amount arrived and shown in the notice. Complainant has every right to know as to how the opposite parties arrived at such a huge amount towards water charge arrears. No proper reading of the meter is taken regularly, that the possibility of the defective meter cannot be ruled out. Hence this complaint to cancel the bill No.9 dated 7/7/2001 and the subsequent bills issued to the complainant and to direct opposite parties to issue correct notice showing all the details of consumption of water, period of bill and to restrain opposite parties from disconnecting the water supply in the house of the complainant. 2. Opposite parties filed version contending that consumer has not paid water charges regularly. The water connection was converted to non-domestic from 10/94 and water charge per month was Rs.117/- while the complainant had remitted old charge the water charge under domestic category. The cut off notice was issued on 7/7/2001, the water charge was assessed as per the provisions of water supply, the fixation of water charge after convertion is known to the complainant. If the meter was faulty complainant ought to take steps to replace the meter. All the allegation levelled in the complaint are incorrect. 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 notice dated 7/7/2001 and all the subsequent bills cancelled? Whether complainant is entitled to get an order of injunction restraining opposite parties from disconnecting the water supply? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties Other Reliefs and costs?
4. Points (i) to (iv) : Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No.PCH 1907/ND. Submission by the complainant is that he has paid water charges fixed by opposite parties regularly, while it has been resisted by the opposite parties that consumer has not paid water charge regularly. Ext.P1 is the provisional invoice card. As per Ext.P1 upto 9/97 there was an arrear of Rs.6,108.25 and monthly amount to be remitted was Rs.117/-. As per the payment schedule printed overleaf of Ext.P1 it is stated that the amount indicating the monthly provisional. The actual amount due will be ascertained on reading meters and necessary adjustment bill showing amounts due to/ from the complainant will be sent once in six months. On going through the payment schedule on Ext.P1 complainant remitted Rs.117/- on 17/11/97, Rs. 117/- on 8/12/97 and Rs.234/- on 5/3/98. There is nothing in the record to show that complainant had paid water charges regularly. The initial onus of proving payment of water charges would rest on the complainant. Ext.P2 is the copy of notice dated 7/7/2001. It is seen stated in Ext.P2 that complainant has not paid Rs.20,339/- towards water charges within the time allowed. It is further stated that the supply of water will be cut off from the said premises at complainant's expense after seven days of Ext.P2 notice. Ext.P3 is the consumer bill dated 18/9/2002 for Rs.33,123/-. It is seen stated in Ext.P3 that status of the meter is working, consumer class is non-domestic and average consumption from 8/3/2002 to 25/5/2002 is 67.1kl. Meter reading is recorded in Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the consumer bill dated 13/2/2002 for Rs.38,677/-, wherein the average consumption recorded is 81.1kl, status of the meter is working. Ext. P5 is the consumer bill dated 6/9/2003 for Rs.53,381/-. Ext.P6 is the revised bill dated 7/11/2003 for Rs.58,248/-, Ext.P7 is the consumer bill dated 30/11/2002 for Rs.35,699/-. It is evident from Ext.P1 that complainant has remitted monthly amount under non-domestic category from 17/11/97 onwards. It is uttered by opposite parties that the connection was converted in non-domestic category from 10/94 and water charge per month with effect from 10/94 is Rs.117/-. Complainant remitted Rs.117/- on three occasions as per Ext.P1 payment schedule. There is no document to show that whether complainant has remitted amount thereafter. There is provisions in the Water Supply Regulation that complainant is bound to remit amount as per provisional invoice card and the same is not seen remitted in time. If that be so, opposite parties would better send demand notice to the complainant to pay the prescribed amount on or before a particular date. No such notice is seen issued till the issuance of Ext.P5 demand notice dated 7/7/2003 by opposite parties. If complainant failed to react positively to the notice, opposite parties would take step to disconnect the house connection. In this case no notice is seen issued to the complainant till 7/7/2003 and no amount seen remitted by the complainant from 5/3/98 onwards. Nor any document furnished by opposite parties showing that meter reading was taken as per the provision of Water Supply Regulation prior to the issuance of Ext.P2 notice. The action of the opposite parties would definitely amounts to deficiency in service. The issuance of Ext.P2 notice without issuing detailed bills would definitely saddle the complainant. No bill detailing the actual consumption of water charges and arrears was issued by opposite parties prior to Ext.P2 disconnection notice. Complainant has right to know the details of water consumption, water charges, mode of calculation of arrears etc.which was not disclosed in Ext.P2 notice. On going through Exts.P3 to P7 it is seen that water meter was working. In Ext.P3 dated 18/9/2002 it is recorded that water meter status is 'working', consumer class is non-domestic category. A perusal of Ext.P3 reveals that opening meter reading was 573kl, closing meter reading was 745kl and quantity consumed was 172kl. No prior consumer bill furnished by the complainant or by the opposite parties to ascertain whether new meter has been installed. Since complainant has not challenged the meter reading recorded in Exts. P3 to P7 and meter status recorded in the said bills was of 'working, category', we are of the considered opinion that the meter readings recorded after the issuance of Ext.P2 notice are genuine and hence complainant is liable to pay water charges on the basis of meter reading recorded in Exts. P3 to P7 bills. In Ext.P2, the complainant was directed to pay Rs.20,339/- towards water charges which was not seen accompanied by any of the detailed bills. The onus is upon the opposite parties to disclose detailed split up bill towards water charges. Opposite parties must also say from which date water charges fell due. Whether meter was functioning or not prior to the issuance of Ext.P2 notice dated 7/7/2001. Since the complainant has not furnished receipts showing the payment of water charges in time and Ext.P2 is seen issued without disclosing the details of water charges, we are of the view that the Ext.P2 notice dated 7/7/2001 is without any basis. In view of the foregoing discussions we find justice will be well met if complainant is directed to remit Rs.117/- per month from 9/97 onwards till 7/7/2001 and water charges on the basis of meter reading from 8/01 onwards. Opposite parties shall adjust amounts if any, remitted by the complainant after filing the complaint.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Ext.P2 notice dated 7/7/2001 and subsequent bills (Exts. P3 to P7) are hereby cancelled. Complainant shall remit the monthly amount of Rs.117/- as per Ext.P1 Provisional Invoice Card from 9/97 to 7/2001 after adjusting the amount if any remitted by the complainant during the said period, within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Opposite parties shall raise a fresh consumer bill from 8/01onwards on the basis of actual consumption as recorded in consumer bills (Exts.P3 to P7). Opposite parties shall adjust amounts if any, remitted by the complainant during the said period in the bill to be issued to the complainant. The amount as per the new consumer bill to be issued to the complainant shall be remitted by 6 equal monthly installments commencing from the month of issuance of the new bill itself. Opposite parties are hereby restrained from disconnecting water connection to consumer No.PCH 1907/ND for a period of 6 months from the date of issuance of the new bill by the opposite parties. There will be no compensation and cost in fact 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 30th day of May, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad. O.P.No.299/2001 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness : NIL
II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Provisional Invoice Card of consumer No.PCH-1907 issued by opposite party. P2 : Photocopy of notice dated 7/7/2001 issued by opposite party P3 : Consumer bill No.KWA/PCH/Sep/22002/-4240 dated 18/09/2002 of consumer No.PCH/1907/N for Rs.33,123/-. P4 : " KWA/PCH/Jan/2003/-3607 dt. 13/2/2003 of con.No.PCH/1907/N for Rs.38,677/-. P5 : " 71 dated 6/09/2003 of consumer No.PCH/1907/N for Rs.53,381/-. P6 : Consumer bill No.110 dated 7/11/2003 of consumer No.PCH/1907/N for Rs. 58248. P7 : Consumer bill No. KWA/PCH/Nov/2002/-1472 dated 13/11/2002 of consumer No.PCH/1907/N for Rs.35,699/-.
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. 299/2001 Dated: 30..05..2009
Complainant: K. Jayakrishnan, T.C.25/2950, Vanchiyoor Village, Trivandrum. (By Adv. P.A. Dev)
Opposite parties:
Kerala Water Authority, represented by its Managing Director, Trivandrum. The Assistant Engineer, Central Sub Division, Section II, Pattoor, Kerala Water Authority, Trivandrum.
(By Adv. C. Sasidharan Pillai)
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 06..02..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 30..04..2009, the Forum on 30..05..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. PCH 1907/ND, that the complainant had paid the water charge fixed by opposite parties regularly, and that complainant received a notice No.9 dated 7/7/2001 from the 2nd opposite party demanding payment of Rs.20,339/- towards water charges, that it was informed by the opposite parties that the water supply will be cut off at the expense of the complainant, if he fails to pay the water charges within 7 days, that no bill has been issued to the complainant as shown in the said notice. No details regarding the calculation of the amount arrived and shown in the notice. Complainant has every right to know as to how the opposite parties arrived at such a huge amount towards water charge arrears. No proper reading of the meter is taken regularly, that the possibility of the defective meter cannot be ruled out. Hence this complaint to cancel the bill No.9 dated 7/7/2001 and the subsequent bills issued to the complainant and to direct opposite parties to issue correct notice showing all the details of consumption of water, period of bill and to restrain opposite parties from disconnecting the water supply in the house of the complainant. 2. Opposite parties filed version contending that consumer has not paid water charges regularly. The water connection was converted to non-domestic from 10/94 and water charge per month was Rs.117/- while the complainant had remitted old charge the water charge under domestic category. The cut off notice was issued on 7/7/2001, the water charge was assessed as per the provisions of water supply, the fixation of water charge after convertion is known to the complainant. If the meter was faulty complainant ought to take steps to replace the meter. All the allegation levelled in the complaint are incorrect. 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 notice dated 7/7/2001 and all the subsequent bills cancelled? Whether complainant is entitled to get an order of injunction restraining opposite parties from disconnecting the water supply? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties Other Reliefs and costs?
4. Points (i) to (iv) : Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No.PCH 1907/ND. Submission by the complainant is that he has paid water charges fixed by opposite parties regularly, while it has been resisted by the opposite parties that consumer has not paid water charge regularly. Ext.P1 is the provisional invoice card. As per Ext.P1 upto 9/97 there was an arrear of Rs.6,108.25 and monthly amount to be remitted was Rs.117/-. As per the payment schedule printed overleaf of Ext.P1 it is stated that the amount indicating the monthly provisional. The actual amount due will be ascertained on reading meters and necessary adjustment bill showing amounts due to/ from the complainant will be sent once in six months. On going through the payment schedule on Ext.P1 complainant remitted Rs.117/- on 17/11/97, Rs. 117/- on 8/12/97 and Rs.234/- on 5/3/98. There is nothing in the record to show that complainant had paid water charges regularly. The initial onus of proving payment of water charges would rest on the complainant. Ext.P2 is the copy of notice dated 7/7/2001. It is seen stated in Ext.P2 that complainant has not paid Rs.20,339/- towards water charges within the time allowed. It is further stated that the supply of water will be cut off from the said premises at complainant's expense after seven days of Ext.P2 notice. Ext.P3 is the consumer bill dated 18/9/2002 for Rs.33,123/-. It is seen stated in Ext.P3 that status of the meter is working, consumer class is non-domestic and average consumption from 8/3/2002 to 25/5/2002 is 67.1kl. Meter reading is recorded in Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the consumer bill dated 13/2/2002 for Rs.38,677/-, wherein the average consumption recorded is 81.1kl, status of the meter is working. Ext. P5 is the consumer bill dated 6/9/2003 for Rs.53,381/-. Ext.P6 is the revised bill dated 7/11/2003 for Rs.58,248/-, Ext.P7 is the consumer bill dated 30/11/2002 for Rs.35,699/-. It is evident from Ext.P1 that complainant has remitted monthly amount under non-domestic category from 17/11/97 onwards. It is uttered by opposite parties that the connection was converted in non-domestic category from 10/94 and water charge per month with effect from 10/94 is Rs.117/-. Complainant remitted Rs.117/- on three occasions as per Ext.P1 payment schedule. There is no document to show that whether complainant has remitted amount thereafter. There is provisions in the Water Supply Regulation that complainant is bound to remit amount as per provisional invoice card and the same is not seen remitted in time. If that be so, opposite parties would better send demand notice to the complainant to pay the prescribed amount on or before a particular date. No such notice is seen issued till the issuance of Ext.P5 demand notice dated 7/7/2003 by opposite parties. If complainant failed to react positively to the notice, opposite parties would take step to disconnect the house connection. In this case no notice is seen issued to the complainant till 7/7/2003 and no amount seen remitted by the complainant from 5/3/98 onwards. Nor any document furnished by opposite parties showing that meter reading was taken as per the provision of Water Supply Regulation prior to the issuance of Ext.P2 notice. The action of the opposite parties would definitely amounts to deficiency in service. The issuance of Ext.P2 notice without issuing detailed bills would definitely saddle the complainant. No bill detailing the actual consumption of water charges and arrears was issued by opposite parties prior to Ext.P2 disconnection notice. Complainant has right to know the details of water consumption, water charges, mode of calculation of arrears etc.which was not disclosed in Ext.P2 notice. On going through Exts.P3 to P7 it is seen that water meter was working. In Ext.P3 dated 18/9/2002 it is recorded that water meter status is 'working', consumer class is non-domestic category. A perusal of Ext.P3 reveals that opening meter reading was 573kl, closing meter reading was 745kl and quantity consumed was 172kl. No prior consumer bill furnished by the complainant or by the opposite parties to ascertain whether new meter has been installed. Since complainant has not challenged the meter reading recorded in Exts. P3 to P7 and meter status recorded in the said bills was of 'working, category', we are of the considered opinion that the meter readings recorded after the issuance of Ext.P2 notice are genuine and hence complainant is liable to pay water charges on the basis of meter reading recorded in Exts. P3 to P7 bills. In Ext.P2, the complainant was directed to pay Rs.20,339/- towards water charges which was not seen accompanied by any of the detailed bills. The onus is upon the opposite parties to disclose detailed split up bill towards water charges. Opposite parties must also say from which date water charges fell due. Whether meter was functioning or not prior to the issuance of Ext.P2 notice dated 7/7/2001. Since the complainant has not furnished receipts showing the payment of water charges in time and Ext.P2 is seen issued without disclosing the details of water charges, we are of the view that the Ext.P2 notice dated 7/7/2001 is without any basis. In view of the foregoing discussions we find justice will be well met if complainant is directed to remit Rs.117/- per month from 9/97 onwards till 7/7/2001 and water charges on the basis of meter reading from 8/01 onwards. Opposite parties shall adjust amounts if any, remitted by the complainant after filing the complaint.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Ext.P2 notice dated 7/7/2001 and subsequent bills (Exts. P3 to P7) are hereby cancelled. Complainant shall remit the monthly amount of Rs.117/- as per Ext.P1 Provisional Invoice Card from 9/97 to 7/2001 after adjusting the amount if any remitted by the complainant during the said period, within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Opposite parties shall raise a fresh consumer bill from 8/01onwards on the basis of actual consumption as recorded in consumer bills (Exts.P3 to P7). Opposite parties shall adjust amounts if any, remitted by the complainant during the said period in the bill to be issued to the complainant. The amount as per the new consumer bill to be issued to the complainant shall be remitted by 6 equal monthly installments commencing from the month of issuance of the new bill itself. Opposite parties are hereby restrained from disconnecting water connection to consumer No.PCH 1907/ND for a period of 6 months from the date of issuance of the new bill by the opposite parties. There will be no compensation and cost in fact 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 30th day of May, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad. O.P.No.299/2001 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness : NIL
II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Provisional Invoice Card of consumer No.PCH-1907 issued by opposite party. P2 : Photocopy of notice dated 7/7/2001 issued by opposite party P3 : Consumer bill No.KWA/PCH/Sep/22002/-4240 dated 18/09/2002 of consumer No.PCH/1907/N for Rs.33,123/-. P4 : " KWA/PCH/Jan/2003/-3607 dt. 13/2/2003 of con.No.PCH/1907/N for Rs.38,677/-. P5 : " 71 dated 6/09/2003 of consumer No.PCH/1907/N for Rs.53,381/-. P6 : Consumer bill No.110 dated 7/11/2003 of consumer No.PCH/1907/N for Rs. 58248. P7 : Consumer bill No. KWA/PCH/Nov/2002/-1472 dated 13/11/2002 of consumer No.PCH/1907/N for Rs.35,699/-.
Opposite parties' witness : NIL Opposite parties' documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
