0BEFORE 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. 415/2004 Filed on 03.11.2004 Dated : 31.03.2010 Complainant:
M/s Jaj Enterprises, Panavila Junction, Thiruvananthapuram-1, represented by its Managing Partner T.C Varghese.
(By adv. K.C. Anilkumar) Opposite parties:
The Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Managing Director. Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Works Central Sub Division, Thiruvananthapuram. Assistant Engineer, Palayam Section, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been heard on 15.02.2010, the Forum on 31.03.2010 delivered the following: ORDER SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. VAZ-6592/N under non-domestic category, that 3rd opposite party issued a bill No. 403 dated 19.05.2004 to the complainant demanding to pay an amount of Rs. 72,482/- towards water charges upto April 2004, that water supply of the complainant was disconnected by the opposite parties 10 years back, that after receiving the said bill complainant submitted an application to opposite parties stating that the payment is exorbitant and not based on actual calculations. Complainant requested them to issue new bills based on actual calculation and he expressed his willingness to pay the arrears upto the disconnection of water supply. Complainant paid water charges upto January 1992. The provisional invoice card issued by the opposite party shows that the monthly rate fixed by opposite parties during the year 1988 was Rs. 10/- per month. Subsequently opposite party revised the water charges in 1992 and issued another provisional invoice card for Rs. 50/- per month and in the said invoice card it was stated that the arrears of Rs. 230/-due to 2/92 is to be remitted in full. After a lapse of 2 years opposite party issued a notice to the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 15,095.40 towards water charges upto 1/94. Thereafter opposite party issued another notice in form No. 7 dated 25.11.1994 to pay Rs. 22,237.40. Thereafter opposite party issued another bill dated 28.02.2002 for Rs. 28,424/-. On 19.05.2004 opposite party issued another notice for Rs. 68,243/-. The demands and bills issued by opposite parties are illegal and not based on actual calculation. The act of the opposite party is against principles of natural justice, equity and good conscious. Hence this complaint to declare that the complainant is not liable to pay any amount as per the notice dated 28.01.1994, 25.11.1994 and bills dated 28.02.2002 and 19.05.2004 along with restoration of connection with immediate effect. Opposite parties filed version contending that the water supply connection was disconnected on 21.12.1994 due to non-payment of arrears of water charges, the connection was again disconnected at the boring point on 26.08.1995 due to unauthorized tapping of potable water through the disconnected portions using PVC pipes. The arrears of water charges was Rs. 26,613/- as on the date of disconnection including fine. The fine applicable is @ Rs. 5/- per month upto 3/1999 and @ 2% on the outstanding balance of each month after 4/99. As such the amount payable by the petitioner is Rs. 76,482/- as on 11/04. The tariff of water charges were revised with effect from 10/91, 6/93, 6/94 and 4/99. The disconnection was effected as per clause 21 of Kerala Water Authority Regulations after observing all the formalities. Billing was done on the basis of the consumption of potable water by the petitioner. The Assistant Executive Engineer inspected the site on 20.08.1995 and reported that the the party drawing water unauthorizedly by connecting with PVC pipes. Assistant Executive Engineer ordered to take water charges upto 26.08.1995 before restoration of water connection at penal rate. On 04.11.2004 this Forum directed the complainant to remit Rs. 5,000/- and opposite party was directed to accept this amount as part payment and to restore water connection on the date of receipt of the payment itself. It was also ordered that complainant has to bear the reconnection charges. As such the complainant has remitted an amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 08.11.2004 and connection could not be restored for want of tar cut permission from the PWD authorities. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The points that arise for consideration are:- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the water bills cancelled? Whether the complainant is entitled to reconnection of water supply? Whether there is deficiency in service? Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation & cost?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P12 were marked. After adducing evidence, complainant has furnished additional 4 documents which were not marked but kept in the records. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties have also furnished 3 documents. Points (i) to (iv):- Admittedly complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. VAZ 6592/N under non-domestic category and water was disconnected on 21.12.1994. It has been the case of the complainant that opposite party disconnected water connection on 21.12.1994, due to non-payment of water charges, that the arrears of water charge upto 12/94 was Rs. 1,930/- instead of Rs. 22,237/- as claimed by opposite parties. Ext. P1 is the PIC wherein connection is categorized as domestic and monthly amount recorded is Rs. 10/- and the arrear amount of Rs. 240/- is recorded as due upto 12/1988. Ext. P2 is the new provisional invoice card wherein consumption is categorized as non-domestic, monthly amount to be remitted is Rs. 50/- and the arrear amount of Rs. 230/- is due upto 2/92. Ext. P3 is the notice dated 28.01.1994 for Rs. 15,095.40 towards water charges upto 01/94. Ext. P4 is the notice dated 25.11.1994 for Rs. 22,237.40 towards water charges 01/87 to 11/94. Ext. P5 is the consumer bill dated 19.05.2004 for Rs. 72,482/-. A perusal of Ext. P5 reveals that status of meter is 'not working' and meter reading not recorded, and water charge from 03/04 to 04/04 comes to Rs. 1,482/-. Ext. P6 is the copy of the letter addressed to Executive Engineer, Palayam Section, KWA. Ext. P7 is the acknowledgement card. Ext. P8 is the bill dated 30.03.2002. In Ext. P8 also meter reading not mentioned, while the status of meter is not working. Ext. P9 is the copy of letter dated 12.05.2006 addressed to Assistant Engineer, KWA, Palayam Section by the complainant stating that he had remitted Rs. 5,000/- as per order in I.A 350/04 and connection was restored during 12/04. It is further stated in Ext. P9 that he is using only 2 to 3 KL water per month as per latest bills. Ext. P10 is the reply to Ext. P9 issued by opposite party. Ext. P11 series are consumer bills from 18 July 2005 to 19 July 2006(6 Nos.). A perusal of Ext. P11 series (bills) reveals that bimonthly consumption of water varied from 3 KL to 5 KL from July 2005 to July 2006. Evidently by Ext. P11 series, the consumption of water was below 50 KL. Ext. P12 series include receipts. As per Ext. P12 series complainant had remitted Rs. 5,000/- on 08.11.2004, Rs. 2,000/- on 14.12.2004 towards miscellaneous collections, Rs. 20,000/- on 15.01.2008, Rs. 254/- on 17.03.2009 and Rs. 254 on 16.05.2009. Admittedly, water connection was earlier disconnected on 21.12.1994 due to non-payment of arrears. As per Ext. P2 PIC an arrear of Rs. 230/- was due upto 2/92. Complainant never furnished any receipts prior to 08.11.2004. It is argued by opposite parties that the water connection was again disconnected at the boring point on 26.08.1995, due to unauthorized tapping of potable water through disconnected portions using PVC pipe. It is pertinent to point out that as on 02/92, there was arrear of Rs. 230/-. Complainant has no case that the said amount was remitted by him. Evidently, complainant continued to use water upto 12/94 and according to opposite party, connection was disconnected at boring point on 26.08.1995. So normally what complainant ought to have remitted is water charge upto 26.08.1995. Thereafter water connection was restored only on 12/04. That means complainant never availed water from opposite parties from 12/94 to 12/04. Opposite party also has no case that complainant had used water during the period 8/95 to 12/04. Admittedly, there was no water connection to consumer No. VAZ 6592/N during the said period. As such opposite party cannot claim water charge from the complainant during the said period, whereas opposite party can claim water charge from 02/92 to 08/95. Evidently by Ext. P2 the arrear amount as on 02/92 was Rs. 230/-. As per meter reading register furnished by opposite parties from 04/92 to 10/94, complainant had used around 3089 units for 30 months, that average monthly consumption would come around 102 KL which is rounded to 100 KL. Thus from 2/92 to 12/94 (that is for 34 months) complainant is liable to pay water charge on the basis of 100 KL per month. Thereafter water connection restored only on 12/04. Complainant is liable to pay water charge on the basis of meter reading from 12/04 onwards. In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Water bills raised during the period from 02/92 to 12/94 are hereby cancelled. Opposite parties shall raise fresh bill on the basis of 100 KL per month for the period from 02/92 to 12/94 after adjusting amount if any remitted by the complainant during the said period. Complainant is not liable to pay water charge during the period of disconnection from 01/95 to 12/04. Opposite party shall raise fresh bill on the basis of meter reading from 12/04 onwards. The amounts remitted by the complainant from 08.11.2004 onwards shall be adjusted in the bill to be issued to the complainant. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Parties shall bear 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 31st day of March 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD, President. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 415/2004 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - T.C Varghese II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Original of provisional invoice card P2 - Original of provisional invoice card P3 - Original notice No. 28/94 dated 28.01.1994 P4 - Original notice No. 1124/94 dated 25.11.1994 P5 - Original Bill No. 403 dated 19.05.2004 P6 - Copy of letter dated 21.06.2004. P7 - Original acknowledgement card duly signed by the opposite party. P8 - Original consumer bill dated 28.02.2002. P9 - Copy of letter dated 12.05.2006. P10 - Reply letter dated 07.06.2006. P11 - Consumer bills from 18 July 2005 to 19 July 2006(6 Nos.) P12 - Series includes receipts.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL
PRESIDENT
| | HONABLE MR. JUSTICE President, President | HONARABLE MR. Sri G. Sivaprasad, PRESIDENT | HONARABLE MRS. Smt. Beena Kumari. A, Member | | 
