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. 551/2002 Dated: 30..12..2008
Complainant:
M. Abdul Aziz, Kadalimangalam, Azhikkodu, Chekkakkonam – P.O. Opposite parties:
Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. Assistant Executive Engineer, K.W.A., Regional Office, Nedumangad.
(By Adv. Santhamma Thomas)
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 19..09..2003, 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 29..11..2008, the Forum on 30..12..2008 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER: The complainant who is a consumer of the Kerala Water Authority bearing consumer No.AVK 166 has filed the complaint alleging as follows: The complainant had availed the water connection in 1985 and since then for some time water was available and he was remitting the water charges promptly. From 1995, water was not available and the complaints made for the same were also in vain. Hence the complainant had sent a registered letter requesting for disconnecting his water connection on 09..12..1995, to the 2nd opposite party. Till 10..10..2002 there was no response from them but on 11..11..2002 the complainant was served with a bill for Rs. 2,170/- dated 25..09..2002 demanding him to pay the said amount before 10..10..2002. Since water was not available from 1995 onwards, the complainant was taking water from the well which has been dug deeply for the same and the complainant had sent a reply dated 13..11..2002 to the 2nd opposite party for which also there was no positive reply and the complainant was asked to remit Rs.2,170/- or else the supply will be disconnected. Moreover, the complainant was asked to get the permission of the opposite party to install a new meter. The opposite parties have not disconnected the connection though request was made by the complainant as early as in 1995, the opposite parties had issued a bill after a lapse of 7 years stating that the meter is not working and the complainant has to pay Rs. 2,170/- or else legal action will be taken. Hence this complaint for redressal of his grievances.
2. The opposite parties have filed their version contending as follows: The arrear bill of the water supply connection No.AVK 166 in the name of the complainant arrived at was calculated on the basis of a Kerala Water Authority Rules. Meter of this connection has ceased to function somewhere between 6/92 and 12/95. The readings noted are 6/92 – 620KL, 12/95 – 785 KL(NW) and 3/03 – 785KL. As per rule 17(d) of KWA (WS) Rules and Regulations 1991, the average consumption of this consumer with not working meter is fixed on the basis of consumption recorded while the meter was working ie.the average recorded during 1986 to 6/92. As the average is less than 10KL month, this consumer was categorised in the minimum slab and billed accordingly. As per this slab consumer had remitted upto 12/95. Since then he has not remitted any charge. This area is not one having water scarcity, even now water is available in this area. As per Rule 9(d) of KWA(WS) Rules and Regulations 1991, if a consumer desires to close his house connection permanently, he shall apply in Form No.RA 4 to the Assistant Executive Engineer through a licensed plumber along with an application fee of Rs.15/- and disconnection fee of Rs.50/- and remit all sum due to the authority. The consumer had neither submitted his application for disconnection in Form No.RA 4 nor remitted application fee and disconnection fee. A connection could not be disconnected merely on the basis of an application in plane paper and that too without remitting the required fees. The consumer had not submitted the legal application for disconnection and not remitted the fees and arrears, the connection is still existing. He failed to remit monthly charges after 12/95. There was an arrear of Rs.2,070/- till 19/02 and hence a cut off notice for this amount was prepared and served on 10..10..2002. In this notice due to some clerical error the arrear amount was noted as Rs.2,170/- instead of Rs.2,070/-. In response the cut off notice, the consumer had lodged a written complaint. A reply to the complaint was promptly given by Assistant Executive Engineer on 16..11..2002. As long as the connection is existing, the consumer is bound to remit at least the minimum water charges. As per clause v(c) of KWA (WS) Amendment Regulations 1997, when a meter provided by the consumer goes out of order, the same shall be got repaired or replaced by the consumer at his own cost. The consumer failed to get the connection legally disconnected and as the connection is still existing the steps taken by the Assistant Executive Engineer on 10/02 and 11/02 are legally correct. In the circumstances stated above the consumer's claims are not sustainable. Hence the opposite parties pray for dismissal of the complaint. 3. Complainant has been examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked on his side. The bill dated 25.09.02 has been mistakenly marked as Ext.P3 & P1, hence the bill is marked as Ext.P3 and letter dated 13.11.02 is marked as Ext.P1. Opposite parties have no evidence. 4. The points to be considered are: Whether the complainant is liable for the amount as per Ext.P3? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
5. Points 1 & 2: The letter sent by the complainant on 09..12..1995 which has been marked as Ext.P2 reveals the fact that the 2nd opposie party was informed with regard to the non-availability of water to the complainant along with his request for disconnecting the water supply. But the complainant alleges that inspite of Ext.P2 he has been issued with a bill for Rs.2,170/- dated 25..09..2002 which is marked as Ext.P3. The complainant further alleges that Ext.P3 dated 25..09..2002 has been issued to him in person only on 11..11..2002 which has not been controverted by the opposie parties. As per Ext.P3 the due date has been mentioned as 10..10..2002. From the above, we do not understand how a person can remit the amount on or before 10..10..2002 on the basis of a bill which has been issued only on 11..11..2002. Moreover in Ext.P3 the period from which the arrears are calculated has been left blank. The arrears are calculated upto 9/02 but from which period has not been stated. The complainant has pleaded that he has remitted water charges till 31..12..1995 which has been admitted by the opposite parties as evidenced from Ext.P4. As per Ext.P3 how the opposie parties have arrived at an amount of Rs.2,170/- has not been clarified. Ext.P2 registered letter send by the complainant requesting for disconnection has not been replied by the opposite parties. But now the opposite parties have raised a contention that, the complainant has not submitted his application for disconnection in form No.RA4 to the Asst. Executive Engineer through a licensed plumber along with an application fee of Rs.15/- and disconnection fee of Rs.50/- and remit all sum due to the Authority. Ext.P2 is a request sent by registered post by the complainant to the Asst. Executive Engineer as on 09..12..1995. But evidently that is only a request in a white paper not as per Rules. But no reply has been sent to the same by the opposite parties. But no bills are seen served subsequent to the said disconnection request except Ext.P3 dated 25..09..2002. Ext.P3 is seen issued after an unreasonable period inspite of Ext.P2. Moreover, the complainant had submitted that, he received Ext.P3 dated 25..09..2002 only on 11..11..2002 and as per Ext.P3 the due date has been mentioned as 10..10..2002. Opposite parties have not produced any material to prove otherwise. As per Ext.P3 the arrears have been calculated upto 9/02 as Rs.2,170/- but here it is very pertinent to note that, from which period the arrears are calculated is unknown. The opposite parties have not produced any documents for substantiating their reason for claiming the alleged amount. Moreover the opposite parties have not issued any bills for water charges since 12/95 except Ext.P3 dated 25..09..2002. The opposite parties have admitted that the complainant has paid the charges till 12/95. At this juncture, the aspect to be looked into is whether the opposite parties had taken any steps to disconnect the supply for non-payment of monthly charges. If at all the submission of the opposite parties is admitted, what presented the opposite parties from disconnecting the connection of the complainant for a very long period of 7 years is not explained. No reason is mentioned by the opposie parties for the same. The complainant has pleaded that he is using water from the well, which has been connected with pump, for the last 7 years. This statement of the complaint also stands uncontroverted. 6. In view of the pleadings in the complaint and the evidence on record, we find that the complaint is genuine. The issuance of Ext.P3 notice on 25..09..2002 without issuing any bills for water charges since 1/96 and non-production of any documents by opposite parties to substantiate the reason for claiming the alleged amount as per Ext.P3, we hold that the complainant is not liable for the amount claimed by opposite parties as per Ext.P3. Though there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposie parties we do not allow any compensation in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, the Ext.P3 bill amounting to Rs.2,170/- (Rupees Two thousand one hundred and seventy only) issued by the opposite parties to the complainant is hereby quashed. There is no order as to compensation and costs. Opposite parties are hereby directed to disconnect the connection of the complainant on receiving the application for the same as per Rules after payment of prescribed fee by the complainant.
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, on this the 30th day of December, 2008.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No.551/2002 APPENDIX
Complainant's witness :
PW1 : Abdul Aziz Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of letter dated 13.11.2002 issued to the opposite party by the complainant.
P2 : Photocopy of letter dated 9.12.95 issued to the opposite parties by the complainant.
P3 : " consumer bill dated 25..09..2002
P4 : " of letter No.AB1/Ws/2/2002 dated 16.11.2002
III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL
IV. 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. 551/2002 Dated: 30..12..2008
Complainant:
M. Abdul Aziz, Kadalimangalam, Azhikkodu, Chekkakkonam – P.O. Opposite parties:
Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. Assistant Executive Engineer, K.W.A., Regional Office, Nedumangad.
(By Adv. Santhamma Thomas)
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 19..09..2003, 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 29..11..2008, the Forum on 30..12..2008 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER: The complainant who is a consumer of the Kerala Water Authority bearing consumer No.AVK 166 has filed the complaint alleging as follows: The complainant had availed the water connection in 1985 and since then for some time water was available and he was remitting the water charges promptly. From 1995, water was not available and the complaints made for the same were also in vain. Hence the complainant had sent a registered letter requesting for disconnecting his water connection on 09..12..1995, to the 2nd opposite party. Till 10..10..2002 there was no response from them but on 11..11..2002 the complainant was served with a bill for Rs. 2,170/- dated 25..09..2002 demanding him to pay the said amount before 10..10..2002. Since water was not available from 1995 onwards, the complainant was taking water from the well which has been dug deeply for the same and the complainant had sent a reply dated 13..11..2002 to the 2nd opposite party for which also there was no positive reply and the complainant was asked to remit Rs.2,170/- or else the supply will be disconnected. Moreover, the complainant was asked to get the permission of the opposite party to install a new meter. The opposite parties have not disconnected the connection though request was made by the complainant as early as in 1995, the opposite parties had issued a bill after a lapse of 7 years stating that the meter is not working and the complainant has to pay Rs. 2,170/- or else legal action will be taken. Hence this complaint for redressal of his grievances.
2. The opposite parties have filed their version contending as follows: The arrear bill of the water supply connection No.AVK 166 in the name of the complainant arrived at was calculated on the basis of a Kerala Water Authority Rules. Meter of this connection has ceased to function somewhere between 6/92 and 12/95. The readings noted are 6/92 – 620KL, 12/95 – 785 KL(NW) and 3/03 – 785KL. As per rule 17(d) of KWA (WS) Rules and Regulations 1991, the average consumption of this consumer with not working meter is fixed on the basis of consumption recorded while the meter was working ie.the average recorded during 1986 to 6/92. As the average is less than 10KL month, this consumer was categorised in the minimum slab and billed accordingly. As per this slab consumer had remitted upto 12/95. Since then he has not remitted any charge. This area is not one having water scarcity, even now water is available in this area. As per Rule 9(d) of KWA(WS) Rules and Regulations 1991, if a consumer desires to close his house connection permanently, he shall apply in Form No.RA 4 to the Assistant Executive Engineer through a licensed plumber along with an application fee of Rs.15/- and disconnection fee of Rs.50/- and remit all sum due to the authority. The consumer had neither submitted his application for disconnection in Form No.RA 4 nor remitted application fee and disconnection fee. A connection could not be disconnected merely on the basis of an application in plane paper and that too without remitting the required fees. The consumer had not submitted the legal application for disconnection and not remitted the fees and arrears, the connection is still existing. He failed to remit monthly charges after 12/95. There was an arrear of Rs.2,070/- till 19/02 and hence a cut off notice for this amount was prepared and served on 10..10..2002. In this notice due to some clerical error the arrear amount was noted as Rs.2,170/- instead of Rs.2,070/-. In response the cut off notice, the consumer had lodged a written complaint. A reply to the complaint was promptly given by Assistant Executive Engineer on 16..11..2002. As long as the connection is existing, the consumer is bound to remit at least the minimum water charges. As per clause v(c) of KWA (WS) Amendment Regulations 1997, when a meter provided by the consumer goes out of order, the same shall be got repaired or replaced by the consumer at his own cost. The consumer failed to get the connection legally disconnected and as the connection is still existing the steps taken by the Assistant Executive Engineer on 10/02 and 11/02 are legally correct. In the circumstances stated above the consumer's claims are not sustainable. Hence the opposite parties pray for dismissal of the complaint. 3. Complainant has been examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked on his side. The bill dated 25.09.02 has been mistakenly marked as Ext.P3 & P1, hence the bill is marked as Ext.P3 and letter dated 13.11.02 is marked as Ext.P1. Opposite parties have no evidence. 4. The points to be considered are: Whether the complainant is liable for the amount as per Ext.P3? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
5. Points 1 & 2: The letter sent by the complainant on 09..12..1995 which has been marked as Ext.P2 reveals the fact that the 2nd opposie party was informed with regard to the non-availability of water to the complainant along with his request for disconnecting the water supply. But the complainant alleges that inspite of Ext.P2 he has been issued with a bill for Rs.2,170/- dated 25..09..2002 which is marked as Ext.P3. The complainant further alleges that Ext.P3 dated 25..09..2002 has been issued to him in person only on 11..11..2002 which has not been controverted by the opposie parties. As per Ext.P3 the due date has been mentioned as 10..10..2002. From the above, we do not understand how a person can remit the amount on or before 10..10..2002 on the basis of a bill which has been issued only on 11..11..2002. Moreover in Ext.P3 the period from which the arrears are calculated has been left blank. The arrears are calculated upto 9/02 but from which period has not been stated. The complainant has pleaded that he has remitted water charges till 31..12..1995 which has been admitted by the opposite parties as evidenced from Ext.P4. As per Ext.P3 how the opposie parties have arrived at an amount of Rs.2,170/- has not been clarified. Ext.P2 registered letter send by the complainant requesting for disconnection has not been replied by the opposite parties. But now the opposite parties have raised a contention that, the complainant has not submitted his application for disconnection in form No.RA4 to the Asst. Executive Engineer through a licensed plumber along with an application fee of Rs.15/- and disconnection fee of Rs.50/- and remit all sum due to the Authority. Ext.P2 is a request sent by registered post by the complainant to the Asst. Executive Engineer as on 09..12..1995. But evidently that is only a request in a white paper not as per Rules. But no reply has been sent to the same by the opposite parties. But no bills are seen served subsequent to the said disconnection request except Ext.P3 dated 25..09..2002. Ext.P3 is seen issued after an unreasonable period inspite of Ext.P2. Moreover, the complainant had submitted that, he received Ext.P3 dated 25..09..2002 only on 11..11..2002 and as per Ext.P3 the due date has been mentioned as 10..10..2002. Opposite parties have not produced any material to prove otherwise. As per Ext.P3 the arrears have been calculated upto 9/02 as Rs.2,170/- but here it is very pertinent to note that, from which period the arrears are calculated is unknown. The opposite parties have not produced any documents for substantiating their reason for claiming the alleged amount. Moreover the opposite parties have not issued any bills for water charges since 12/95 except Ext.P3 dated 25..09..2002. The opposite parties have admitted that the complainant has paid the charges till 12/95. At this juncture, the aspect to be looked into is whether the opposite parties had taken any steps to disconnect the supply for non-payment of monthly charges. If at all the submission of the opposite parties is admitted, what presented the opposite parties from disconnecting the connection of the complainant for a very long period of 7 years is not explained. No reason is mentioned by the opposie parties for the same. The complainant has pleaded that he is using water from the well, which has been connected with pump, for the last 7 years. This statement of the complaint also stands uncontroverted. 6. In view of the pleadings in the complaint and the evidence on record, we find that the complaint is genuine. The issuance of Ext.P3 notice on 25..09..2002 without issuing any bills for water charges since 1/96 and non-production of any documents by opposite parties to substantiate the reason for claiming the alleged amount as per Ext.P3, we hold that the complainant is not liable for the amount claimed by opposite parties as per Ext.P3. Though there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposie parties we do not allow any compensation in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, the Ext.P3 bill amounting to Rs.2,170/- (Rupees Two thousand one hundred and seventy only) issued by the opposite parties to the complainant is hereby quashed. There is no order as to compensation and costs. Opposite parties are hereby directed to disconnect the connection of the complainant on receiving the application for the same as per Rules after payment of prescribed fee by the complainant.
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, on this the 30th day of December, 2008.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No.551/2002 APPENDIX
Complainant's witness :
PW1 : Abdul Aziz Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of letter dated 13.11.2002 issued to the opposite party by the complainant.
P2 : Photocopy of letter dated 9.12.95 issued to the opposite parties by the complainant.
P3 : " consumer bill dated 25..09..2002
P4 : " of letter No.AB1/Ws/2/2002 dated 16.11.2002
III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents: NIL
PRESIDENT.
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
