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. 164/2001 Filed on 07.04.2001
Dated : 16.08.2010
Complainant:
N. Gopalan, S/o Neelakantan, T.C 19-701, Kurattoor Karithalakal Veedu, Mudavanmugal, Poojappura P.O, Thiruvananthapuram -12.
(By adv. V.G. Hari Kumar)
Opposite parties :
The Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Managing Director.
Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority Sub Division, P.T.P Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram.
Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority East Sub Division, Kunchalumoodu, Karamana, Tvpm-2.
(By adv. S. Bhanu Krishnakumar)
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. This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.06.2010, the Forum on 16.08.2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. KMA/1375/D, that complainant had remitted all the amount upto 01/01, that there was no dues from the side of the complainant, while so opposite parties issued a computerized bill dated 26.02.2001 for Rs. 3,000/- without any clarification. Complainant approached the opposite party to get clarification on the bill, but opposite party was unable to explain how the bill amount is calculated. Opposite parties are not entitled to claim any amount by way of arrears. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint to absolve the complainant from paying any dues and to direct opposite parties to pay compensation with costs.
Opposite parties filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, and that opposite parties could not issue adjustment bill in a stipulated period. Now almost all the accounts of the consumers are entered into the computer system, so issued adjustment bill to the consumer, that the complainant has already remitted as per the provisional invoice card which is not the actual amount. Consumer has not raised any doubt about the consumption and accuracy of the meter readings, that the bill is prepared as per the meter readings and based on actual consumption recorded for various periods. Though ample time was given to the complainant, he did not remit the amount in time. Complainant did not approach the opposite party to enquire about the charges. There is no default on the part of the opposite parties and notice was issued to the party in accordance with the rules and regulations. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
Whether the complainant is entitled to get bills dated 26.02.2001 and 17.12.2001 cancelled?
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P4. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed counter affidavit and has marked Ext. D1.
Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. KMA 1375/D. It has been the case of the complainant that he had remitted all amount of water charges upto 01/2001 vide Ext. P1, copy of the receipt dated 12.01.2001 and hence there was no due from him, that on 26.02.2001 opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 3,040/- vide Ext. P3. A perusal of Ext. P3 bill reveals that no meter reading recorded in it, what has been recorded is total arrears upto 01/2001 is Rs. 3,040/-. Ext. P3 never discloses from which date the water charge fell due. Further average consumption recorded in Ext. P3 is 42.3 KL. In their version, opposite party has mentioned reading date, reading in KL and consumption per month. As per version readings were taken on different dates-12.05.1988, 01.11.1991, 20.10.1997, 28.05.1999, 07.09.1999 and 01.02.2001 and average consumption had increased from 16 KL to 35.4 KL on 20.10.1997-which rose to 42.3 KL on 07.09.1999 and to 38.8 KL on 01.02.2001, out of which opposite party preferred to refer 42.3 KL as the basis of assessing due of water charges. Ext. P2 is the copy of the provisional invoice card. A perusal of Ext. P2 would reveal that monthly water charge from 06/94 has been Rs. 33/-, which rose to Rs. 40/- from 04/99. As per the payment schedule printed overleaf of Ext. P2, last payment of Rs. 200/- recorded on 12.01.2001, which has been strengthened by Ext. P1 receipt. It is pertinent to point out that monthly amount to be remitted as mentioned in Ext. P2 is provisional and the actual amount due will be ascertained on reading meter and necessary adjustment bill showing amounts due to/from the consumer will be sent to him once in six months. Though opposite party has averred in the version meter reading date and meter reading on 20.10.1997, as per Ext. P2 provisional invoice card, arrears of Rs. 264/- + 30 was due upto 07/98, thereby reading stated in the version and amount recorded in Ext. P2 are not tallying. Further no adjustment bill is seen served to complainant within time as stipulated in the Regulation. The reason stated in the version for the bill not being issued in time will never protect the interest of the innocent consumers. Further as per Ext. P4 bill dated 17.12.2001 average consumption from 01.02.2001 to 31.10.2001 has been 20 KL. It is further to be pointed out that complainant has no case that meter is faulty. As per Ext. P4 as on 01.02.2001 meter reading was 3321 KL whereas meter reading as on 31.10.2001 was 3500, thereby average consumption comes to be 20 KL. As already stated the arrears upto 07/98 as per Ext. P2 was Rs. 274/-, thereafter complainant had remitted water charges as per PIC. In view of the above, we find justice will be well met if opposite party is directed to collect water charge on the basis of 20 KL per month from 07/98 to 11/2001 from the complainant. Issuance of the bill without any basis will amount to deficiency in service.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The bills dated 26.02.2001 and 17.12.2001 issued by opposite parties to complainant are cancelled. Opposite parties shall raise fresh bill on the basis of 20 KL per month retrospectively from 07/98 to 11/2001, after adjusting the amounts already remitted by the complainant during the said period. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstance of the case. Parties shall bear and suffer their 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 16th day of August 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD,
President.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 164/2001
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
NIL
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of receipt dated 12.01.2001
P2 - Copy of payment schedule
P3 - Copy of consumer bill dated 26.02.2001
P4 - Consumer Bill dated 17.12.2001
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
D1 - Copy of consumer ledger.
PRESIDENT
jb
