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. 497/2002

Dated : 31.05.2010

Complainant:

K. Sivadasan, Sivan Tailors, Over bridge, Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite parties:

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

    

2. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Water Works, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

3. Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Kuriathi Sub Division.

(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 16.12.2003, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.04.2010, the Forum on 31.05.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is the consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. CH 1440/N, that the connection was cut off in 1996-97 and the meter was taken away by the opposite party due to road widening, that on 12.11.2002 opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 18,116/- to the complainant after a lapse of 5 years from the date of disconnection. Hence this complaint for appropriate decision.

Opposite parties filed version contending that the above said connection was given under non-domestic category, that the averment that opposite party cut off the water supply and took away the water meter due to widening of the road is incorrect, that no such incident took place, that the water meter was not working for the last 8 years, that the meter reading on 20.05.1994 was 2309 KL, that complainant never complained before the authority concerned for replacement of faulty meter with new one, that on 01.01.2003 during inspection it was found by opposite parties that the water meter was removed from the premises, that in October 2002 also the meter reading was taken, and the meter reading was 2309 KL, that the removal of water meter without the permission of the authority is against rules and regulations. It is further submitted by opposite parties that from 12/96 onwards the connection has been under domestic category, that the water charge was Rs. 102/-, that the last payment of water charge was in 12/94. The arrear amount till 01/03 was Rs. 19,262/-. Consumer never paid water charges as per the bills issued by opposite parties. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount claimed by opposite parties as per the bill dated 12.11.2002?

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

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

    

In support of the complaint, complainant has produced 2 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 & P2. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed counter affidavits. Opposite party did not furnish any documents.

Points (i) to (iii):- Ext. P1 is the copy of the bill dated 12.11.2002 for Rs. 18,218/-. A perusal of Ext. P1 reveals that connection is under non-domestic category, while the status of the meter as 'not working'. No meter readings mentioned in Ext. P1. Ext. P2 is the copy of the provisional invoice card. As per Ext. P2 connection category is domestic. Monthly amount to be remitted is Rs. 19/- from 1994 onwards. There is no mention regarding any arrears at the time of issuance of provisional invoice card. As per the demand schedule printed overleaf of Ext. P2, Rs. 750/- is seen remitted on 12/94. Admittedly complainant was a consumer of opposite parties. Evidently, the above said connection was under domestic category. But the reason for conversion of connection from domestic to non-domestic is not stated by the opposite party by any document. Complainant submits that the above said connection was taken in his tailoring shop. But connection is seen given under domestic category as per Ext. P2. The specific case of the complainant is that during 1996-97 the said connection was disconnected and water meter was taken away by the opposite party due to widening of the road. Opposite party denied the same. It has been contended by opposite parties that the water meter was not working for the last 8 years. Opposite party did not furnish any document to show that they have intimated the complainant to replace the faulty meter with new one. No documents were furnished by opposite parties except Ext. P1 bill to show that meter was faulty. It is further to be noted that opposite party has mentioned meter reading in the version only upto 12/94. The burden is upon the opposite party to prove that still the said water meter is in the complainant's tailoring shop's premises. Though opposite parties have mentioned in the version that during inspection on 01.01.2003 by opposite parties it was found that the water meter was removed from the premises, opposite party did not furnish any such inspection report before us. There is no material to show the existence of water meter after 1997. As per Ext. P2 complainant has remitted amount upto 1994. It is admitted by the complainant that water meter is removed and connection was disconnected in the year 1996-97. If we presume that the connection was disconnected due to road widening as asserted by the complainant, he cannot escape from payment of water charge from 12/94 till 1997. Since connection stands under domestic category as per Ext. P2 the reason for conversion of tariff is yet to be explained by the opposite party. In view of the above discussions and evidence available on record we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if complainant is directed to pay water charge at Rs. 19/- per month from 01/95 to 12/97. Complainant is not liable to pay the amount as claimed in Ext. P1 bill issued by opposite parties. In the result, complaint is allowed. Bill dated 12.11.2002 issued by opposite party is hereby quashed. Opposite party shall collect water charge @ Rs. 19/- per month from 01/95 to 12/97 from the complainant as per Ext. P2 provisional invoice card. There is no compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case and both parties shall bear their respective 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 31^st day of May 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 497/2002

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of consumer bill

P2 - Copy of provisional invoice card.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb