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. 441/2003 Filed on 30/10/2003

Dated: 15..12..2009

Complainant:

Leelabhai Soman, Sree Sidhi, Kudavoor, Kadakampally, Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite parties:

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

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Advs. Santhamma Thomas & P. Dileepkhan)

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 23..03..2005, 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..11..2009, the Forum on 15..12..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 vide consumer No. PT 4883, that the ownership of the said connection was transferred to complainant's name on 2/9/1993, that she was forced to remit Rs.534/- towards arrears of water charges from 1988 to 1991 in order to get connection transferred in her name, and that she had remitted water charges till 1999 though water was not made available by the opposite parties, that she was not permitted by opposite parties to remit the water charge from 4/99 by raising the issue of arrears of water charges from 1988 to 1991, that in the Provisional Invoice Card itself, no arrear was mentioned till July 1994. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to record the remittance of Rs.534/- in the opposite parties' record and temporarily disconnect the water connection and pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

2. Opposite parties filed version contending that as per the records of the Kerala Water Authority the amount to be remitted as per meter reading from April 1985 to March 1999 was Rs.3,291.50, of which the consumer had paid Rs. 2,710/- so the remaining balance to be paid as on March 1999 is Rs.582/-, that the arrears accumulated only after 1991, complainant has paid arrears upto 1991, that she has not paid water chargs from April 1999, that as on May 2003 the arrear amount came to Rs. 1,932/-, that if complainant wants to disconnect her connection temporarily, she has to apply in Form No. RA 4 referred to the Regulation 9 (a) & (b) of the Water Supply Regulations 1991 which she has not done, that the application alleged to have submitted before the opposite party is not proper, that the complainant has only sent the above application by registered post to avoid payment of arrears. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get water connection temporarily disconnected?

    

2. Whether the amount of Rs. 534/- remitted on 2/9/1993 by the complainant has been recorded in opposite parties' statement?

    

3. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked. The report submitted by the Asst. Engineer has been marked as Ext. C1. In rebuttal, 2^nd opposite party has filed affidavit, and Exts D1 & D2 were marked.

5. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. PT 4883 and ownership of the said connection was transferred to complainant's name on 2/9/1993. It has been the case of the complainant that she was forced to remit Rs.534/- towards arrear of water charges from 1988 to 1991 in order to get connection transferred in her name, and that she had remitted water charges till 1999 though water was not made available by opposite parties. It has also been the case of the complainant that she was not permitted by opposite parties to remit the water charge from 4/99 by raising the issue that there were arrears of water charge from 1988 to 1991 which was not remitted by her. It is argued by the complainant that she had remitted the said amount on 2/9/1993 by Ext.P2. It is submitted by the complainant that even in the provisional invoice card itself (Ext.P1) opposite party has stated that the arrear of Rs. 'Nil' due upto 4/95. On a perusal of Ext.P1 it is seen that she had remitted monthly amount of Rs.19/- upto 3/99. From 4/99 onwards monthly amount to be remitted is seen enhanced to Rs. 22/-. No adjustment bill is seen issued to the complainant in order to show that she had used excess water than what is permitted as per Provisional Invoice Card. As per Ext. P2 an amount of Rs. 534/- is seen remitted towards water charges for the period upto 9/93. In view of the above, we find the contention of the opposite parties in the version that the amount of Rs.534/- paid on 2/9/1993 was the arrears upto 1991 is without basis. We find that complainant had remitted water charges upto 3/99 by virtue of Ext.P1. Admittedly she has not paid water charges from 4/99. It is submitted by the complainant that after the purchase of the said property with building having the said connection therein, since there was scarcity of water through the pipes, she had dug well and installed pump set to lift water for domestic purposes. As per Ext.C1 report submitted by the Asst. Engineer, Pattoor W.W. Section, there was no water from Kerala Water Authority pipelines when he inspected the site. He has also reported that the meter point is not seen. The Ext.C1 report would corroborate the contention of the complainant that there was no water through pipes after the purchase of the said property by the complainant. Complainant has no case that she had remitted disconnection charge to opposite parties through licensed plumber after paying up-to-date minimum charge. As per Ext.P3 complainant had applied for temporary disconnection on 23/7/2003. Connection is still live. Complainant has to apply in Form No. R A4 to get water connection temporarily disconnected as stipulated under Regulation 9(a) & 9(d) of the Water Supply Regulations, after paying the minimum water charge from 4/99 to 7/03. Since complainant has not remitted the minimum water charge from 4/99 to 7/03 and not applied for temporary disconnection as stipulated under Water Regulation, we find no deficiency on the part of opposite parties.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Complainant shall apply for temporary disconnection of consumer No.PT 4883 after paying the minimum water charge from 4/99 to 7/03 as specified under Water Supply Regulation.

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 December, 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

O.P.No. 441/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Photocopy of Provisional Invoice Card

P2 : " acknowledgment for receipt of money dated 2/9/1993

P3 : " request dated 23/7/03 addressed to opposite parties.

P4 : " of acknowledgment card dated 25/7/2003.

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Photocopy of statement of facts.

D2 : " consumer ledger dated 17/03/2004.

V. Court witness : NIL

VI. Court Exhibit:

C1 : Report submitted by the Asst. Engineer, Pattoor, Section No. II.

PRESIDENT.