BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> <br /> PRESENT :<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No. 71/2004 Filed on 07..02..2004 <br /> Dated: 30..06..2008<br /> <br /> Complainant:<br /> <br /> M. Mathew, Muthoot House, T.C.4/2024(1), No.26, Mummy's Colony, Kuravankonam, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> (By Adv. Shri. V. Bhuvanendran Nair)<br /> <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> <br /> 1. Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 2. Kerala Water Authority, represented by the Asst. Executive Engineer, Kowdiar Sub Section (Kowdiar Section), Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram – 03.<br /> <br /> (By Adv. Shri. P. Dileep Khan) <br /> 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 29..04..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 06..05..2008, the Forum on 30..06..2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT : <br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that the complainant is having a domestic water connection of opposite parties vide consumer No.KDR/10144/D. The said connection is in the name of the complainant and his wife Smt. Ammini Mathew. Opposite parties had issued a Provisional Invoice Card to the complainant. The water meter installed in the complainant's house is in working condition. Complainant has been regularly remitting the water charge of Rs.82/- per month without making any default or delay till date. There was no allegation raised against the complainant regarding the arrears of water charges so far. On 04..10..2002, the complainant remitted a sum of Rs.936/- for the period from October 2002 to September 2003. On 16..10..2003, the complainant remitted a sum of Rs.82/- as water charge. On the very same day again complainant remitted a sum of Rs.854/- as water charges for the period from May 2003 to October 2004. There is duplication in payment of water charges for the period from May 2003 to September 2003 ie., the complainant had remitted 5 months water charges additionally to the opposite parties and that amounts to Rs. 410/-. On 12..01..2004 the opposite parties issued a bill under No.7 for Rs.21,847/- to the complainant wherein the complainant was asked to remit Rs. 3,246/- as water charges from May 2003 to December 2003 and also Rs. 18,601/- as dues upto April 2003 totalling an amount of Rs. 21,847/- on or before 10..02..2004. In the said bill it is seen that meter readings were taken on 28..01..2003 and 22..03..2003 based on which the monthly water consumption is assessed as 86.7 kl and water charges Rs.452/- per month. Nobody from Kerala Water Authority Office had come to the complainant's house to take the meter readings on any dates. There is round the clock security guard in the complainant's house. If the meter readings were actually taken as claimed in the bill on 28..01..2003 and 22..03..2003, the opposite parties could have sent their arrear bill long back and asked the complainant to pay the arrears first before accepting the advance payments made by him. Opposite parties had not issued any arrear bill before and asked to clear the arrears till the date of this bill. No arrears of the bill were due to be paid by the complainant so far. The act of the opposite parties to issues such a false and fabricated bill was illegal which caused mental agony and irreparable damage to the complainant. Hence this complaint to cancel the bill No.7 dated 12..01..2004 and to regularise the advance amount regarding the consumption.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that Kerala Water Authority is not made a party to the proceedings, only the Managing Director of K.W.A is made party in his individual capacity. As per Section 3 of the Kerala Water Authority either the Chairman or the Managing Director is to be made a party in a proceeding against the Authority. In the complaint no liability is seen pleaded against the K.W.A. There is no pleadings as regards any deficiency in service on anybody. The card issued to the complainant being only provisional, the consumer is bound to remit water charges for water used above the allotted cealing. The quantity of water allotted to the consumer is 30kl per month. The consumer has consumed much more than that. The details can be seen from the consumer ledger of the consumer. The consumer is bound to pay as per the actual consumption. There is no excess P.I.C charges paid by the complainant. It is admitted that a bill for a sum of Rs.21,847/- was tendered to the complainant which is for the consumption of water above the P.I.C quantity 30kl/month. The delay in tendering the bill occurred only due to the pressures of introducing bi-monthly billing system at the K.W.A still the bill is not barred by limitation. Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the complaint is denied. The arrears bill tendered is correct and the consumer is bound to remit it. The reliefs claimed are not to be allowed. Hence opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> (i)Whether the complainant is entitled to get cancelled the bill No.7 dated 12..01..2004 issued by opposite parties?<br /> <br /> (ii)Whether complainant is entitled to get an order directing the opposite parties to regularise the advance amount regarding the consumption?<br /> <br /> (iii)Other Reliefs?<br /> <br /> 4. To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. On the part of opposite parties Assistant Executive Engineer, KWA, Kowdiar Section has filed an affidavit and Ext. D1 was marked.<br /> <br /> 5. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, the consumer No. KDR/10144/D stands in the name of the complainant and his wife. Submission by the complainant is that complainant had remitted the monthly water charge of Rs. 82/- from 24..11..1999 to October 2004 without making any default. The water meter installed in the complainant's premises is in working condition. Ext.P1 is the copy of the provisional invoice card issued by Kerala Water Authority, wherein the monthly amount to be remitted mentioned is Rs.82/-. Period of monthly remittance is 10th to 25th of every month. Payment schedule is printed on the overleaf of Ext.P1. A perusal of Ext.P1 payment schedule would disclose that complainant had remitted water charges upto September 2002. Ext.P1 foot note would read as under “the amount indicated for monthly payment is only provisional. The actual amount due will be ascertained on reading the meter and necessary adjustment bill showing amounts due to/from you will be sent to you once in six months”. Main thrust of argument advanced by the counsel appearing for the complainant was to the effect that on 04..10..2002 the complainant remitted a sum of Rs.936/- as water charges for the period from October 2002 to September 2003 (12months). Ext.P2 is the said receipt issued by opposite parties. Ext.P3 is the receipt issued by opposite parties for payment of Rs.82/- dated 16..10..2003. Ext.P4 is the receipt dated 16..10..2003 for payment of Rs.854/-. It is pertinent to point out that as per Ext. P2 complainant had remitted water charges for the period from October 2002 to September 2003 on 04..10..2002, while as per Ext.P3 & P4 complainant had remitted water charges for the period from May 2003 to October 2004. Thereby, submission by the complainant is that there is duplication in payment of water charges for the period from May 2003 to September 2003. On going through Exts.P2 to P4, it is evident that complainant had remitted 5 months water charges additionally to the opposite parties which amounts to Rs. 410/-. The grievance of the complainant is that on 12..01..2004 the opposite parties issued a bill for Rs. 21,847/- to the complainant wherein the complainant was asked to remit Rs.3,246/- as water charges from May 2003 to December 2003 and also Rs. 18,601/- as dues upto April 2003, a total amount of Rs.21,847/- on or before 10..02..2004, but without taking meter reading. As per Ext.P5 bill meter reading is seen taken on 28..01..2003 and 22..03..2003, but complainant asserted that meter reading was not taken during this periods. Submission by the complainant is that opposite parties wrongly calculated the monthly water consumption as 86.7kl and water charges of Rs. 452/- per month. Complainant sent Ext.P6 notice to opposite parties. Ext.P7 is the acknowledgment card. Through Ext.P6 complainant informed that nobody from Kerala Water Authority had come to complainant's house for noting the readings of the water meter. Submission by the counsel of the complainant is that there is round the clock security guard in complainant's house. Opposite parties had filed affidavit by way of evidence. Ext. D1 is the consumer ledger. The veracity of the said ledger is challenged by the complainant. Opposite parties never expressed specific denial to the allegation of the complainant that nobody from K.W.A had visited the complainant's residence on 28..01..2003 and 22..03..2003 for ascertaining the meter reading as mentioned in Ext.P5. The complainant was not cross examined by the opposite parties. The onus of proving that the Ext.P5 was prepared after taking meter reading would lay on the opposite parties, but no attempt was seen taken by the opposite parties to examine the person who was authorised by opposite parties to conduct meter reading, even the name of the said person who conducted the meter reading is not mentioned in the version as well as affidavit of the opposite parties. Submission by the complainant is that no official authority had taken the meter readings periodically and no intimation was given to the complainant regarding the quantity of water consumed. A perusal of Ext. P1 would disclose that meter reading is seen taken on 24..11..1999, 07..03..2002, 30..09..2002, 30..11..2002, 28..01..2003 & 22..03..2003. PIC amount and PIC KL are seen mentioned in Ext.D1. If meter readings were taken on 07..03..2002 and on the subsequent dates as shown in the version as well as in Ext.D1 consumer ledger it was the bounden duty of the opposite parties to intimate the same to the complainant in time and claim water charges. It is pertinent to note that the arrears of bill was seen raised on 12..01..2004 claiming water charges of Rs. 3,246/- for months from 5/2003 to 12/2003 and dues of Rs.18,601/- upto 4/2003. Further, the submission by the complainant is that there is round clock security guard in the complainant's house. If the meter readings were actually taken as claimed in Ext.P5 bill on 28..01..2003 and 22..03..2003, (that about 11 ½ months and 10 months back), the opposite parties could have sent their arrears bill long back and asked the complainant to pay arrears first before accepting the advance payments. It is pertinent to note that the arrears against the complainant were of the period much more than two years immediately preceding demand in question. A perusal of Ext.P1 would disclose that the actual amount due will be ascertained on reading the meters and necessary adjustment bill showing the amount due to bill be sent to the complainant once in six months. The actual amount due was not ascertained and intimated the complainant by the opposite parties as per Ext.P1. No meter card produced by the complainant. There is no case on the part of opposite parties that timely meter reading was taken and recorded in the water meter card. The genuineness of the Ext.P5 bill is still under challenge. Opposite parties failed to prove the same with cogent evidence. In view of the discussion made above as well as in the interest of natural justice we quash the Ext.P5 bill at this juncture, with liberty to the opposite parties to ascertain the water reading in the presence of complainant and raise fresh bill if required after proper reading and after exclusion of time- barred arrears if any, and after adjusting the advance amount already remitted by the complainant in advance as per Exts. P2 and P4. On 10..12..2004 this Forum passed an interim order directing opposite parties to maintain statusquo of water connection KDR/10144/D until further orders. The said interim order is hereby made absolute.<br /> <br /> In the result, complaint is allowed. Bill No.7, dated 12..01..2004 for Rs. 21,847/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant is cancelled. Opposite parties are at liberty to ascertain the meter reading in the presence of complainant and raise fresh bill if required after proper reading and after exclusion of time-barred arrears, if any, and after adjusting the advance amount already remitted by the complainant as per Ext.P2 and P4 receipts issued by the opposite parties. There will be no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ad.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OP.No. 71/2004<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I. Complainant's witness: NIL<br /> II.Complainant's documents:<br /> P1 : Photocopy of provisional invoice card of consumer No. KDR-10144.<br /> P2 : Photocopy of receipt No.H 093929 dated 04..10..2002<br /> P3 : Photocopy of receipt No.I-023240 dated 16..10..2003<br /> P4 : Photocopy of receipt No.I-023247 dated <br /> 16..10..2003<br /> P5 : Photocopy of consumer bill No.7 dated 12..01..2004 of meter No. N 6185<br /> P6 : Photocopy of letter dated 28..01..2004 addressed to the opposite party from the <br /> complainant.<br /> P7 : Photocopy of postal acknowledgment card dated 31..01..2004.<br /> III.Opposite parties witness: NIL<br /> IV.Opposite parties documents:<br /> D1 : Original copy of consumer ledger dated <br /> 20..03..2004 of Consumer No.KDR 10144.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br />