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. 336/2002 Filed on 31.07.2002

Dated : 29.11.2008

Complainant:

R. Sekharan, S.L. Bhavan, Pongummoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. K. Sreekumaran Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Neyyattinkara.

    

2. The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Tvpm.

(By adv. C. Sasidharan Pillai)

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 16.08.2004, 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 30.10.2008, the Forum on 29.11.2008 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant had availed water connection for domestic purpose from 11.12.1992 with consumer No. MP 15. As per the provisional invoice card dated 11.12.1992 the petitioner had to make monthly payment of Rs. 11/-. The petitioner had paid the monthly bills till 07.11.1996. In Maranalloor Panchayath the water is supplied once in two days. Complainant has one water tap fitted very near to the water meter. No pipe connection installed in the building. Complainant is having a well for his use. From 07.11.1996 onwards the meter reading was not taken and hence complainant was not able to make the balance. On 22.06.2002 complainant received a notice from the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 18,669/-. Complainant filed a complaint before the opposite party and opposite party corrected the bills for an amount of Rs. 15734/-. At no stretch of imagination such a huge amount is due from the complainant. The bill amount is calculated in an arbitrary manner overlooking all provisions of law. A new provisional invoice card was issued to the complainant for monthly amount of Rs. 22/-. Hence this complaint to declare that opposite parties have no right to claim such huge amount.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the averments in para 1 to 3 are admitted. Meter readings were taken in 4 times that is on 11/94, 11/2000, 10/2001 and 04/2002. The Water Authority had issued a bill for Rs. 18669/- for water charge arrears upto 06/2002. Complainant had given a complaint before the opposite parties' office on the basis of which bill was rechecked and revised to Rs. 15734/-. The error occurred due to clerical mistakes was corrected. The rate fixed in the provisional invoice card was the minimum charges that is for consumption only 10 KL/month. But on the readings taken on 11/94, 11/2000, 10/2001 and 04/2002 consumer has to remit the water charges as mentioned below:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Period Consumption/ Rate Duration Water Charges Fine

month Rs. Months Rs. Rs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/92 to 05/93 22 KL/month 29/- 6 174/- Nil

06/93 to 05/94 22 KL/month 41/- 12 492/- Nil

06/94 to 10/94 56 KL/month 47/- 5 235/- Nil

11/94 to 03/99 56 KL/month 162/- 53 8586/-} 58x5= 290/-

04/99 to 09/01 56 KL/month 226/- 30 6780/-}

10/01 to 03/02 09 KL/month 22/- 6 132/- 30

04/02 to 06/02 09 KL/month 22/- 3 66/- 15

TOTAL 16465 + 335

= Rs. 16800/-

Amount remitted by the petitioner upto 06/2002 = Rs. 1064/-

Balance to be remitted upto 06/2002 = Rs. 16800.00-

Rs. 1064.00

--------------------

= Rs. 15736/-

============

The bill issued by the opposite party is genuine and the petitioner is liable to remit water charges as he has actually consumed the water during such period. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that would arise for consideration are:-

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

2. Whether the bill issued by the opposite party is genuine?

3. Whether the complainant is liable to the amount claimed by opposite parties?

4. Other reliefs and costs.

To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P7. To support version, 1^st opposite party has filed a counter affidavit.

Points (i) to (iv):- Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties with consumer No. MP15. It has been the case of the complainant that complainant had taken water connection from opposite parties on 11.12.1992 and monthly water charge was fixed by opposite party as Rs. 11 upto May 1994/- and that complainant had remitted water charge upto 1996 after that meter reading was taken only once in 11/2000, but no other bill was issued to the complainant to pay water charge except the bill dated 22.06.2002 which was issued without taking proper meter reading and so complainant prayed for exoneration from payment. Ext. P1 is the copy of the provisional invoice card issued to the complainant. On a perusal of Ext. P1 it is seen that initially the monthly amount was fixed at Rs. 11/- which continued till 06/94, and thereafter the monthly remittance was fixed at Rs. 19/-. Ext. P2 is the photocopy of two receipts dated 11.12.1992 and 07.11.1996 and a provisional invoice card. A perusal of Ext. P2 would disclose that opposite party had received from the complainant an amount of Rs. 1053/- for a period ranging from 01/93 to 11/96 on 07.11.1996 and Rs. 11/- on 11.12.2002. As per new provisional invoice card the monthly amount to be remitted by the complainant was renewed at Rs. 22/- from 04/02 and the arrears of Rs. 15734/- was due upto 06/2002. Ext. P4 is the copy of notice dated 22.06.2002 informing the complainant that complainant has not paid Rs. 18669/- towards water charges from 12/92 to 06/02 as per bill and provisional invoice card within the time allowed and hence the supply of water will be cut off after 7 days of Ext. P4 notice served upon him. In response to Ext. P4 notice, complainant sent reply to 1^st opposite party by Ext. P5 which would show that the amount claimed by opposite party as per Ext. P4 is exorbitant and that the amount due from complainant would come around Rs. 2000/- only. Ext. P7 is the copy of the meter's card. It will be evident from Ext. P7 that meter reading on 11/94 was 514 KL which rose to 5107 KL on 11/00. In the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties it is submitted that meter readings were taken in 4 times that is on 11/94, 11/2000, 10/2001 and 04/2002. It is pertinent to note that as per Ext. P4 consumer's meter card, meter reading was taken in two times, that is on 11/94 and on 11/2000. On 11/94, meter reading was 514 KL and the date of connection was 12/92. That means from 12/92 to 11/94 complainant had used 514 KL water. Opposite party in their version and affidavit had made a detailed statement of account. Accordingly from 12/92 to 05/93 for 6 months, monthly consumption was 22 KL/month. Thus the total consumption during the said period would be 22 KLx6= 132 KL. From 06/93 to 05/94 (for 12 months) monthly consumption was 22 KL. Thus total consumption during the said period would be 22 KL x 12 = 264 KL. From 06/94 to 10/94 for 5 months monthly consumption was 56 KL per month. Thus the total consumption during the said period would become 56 KL x 5 = 280 KL. That is from 12/92 to 05/93 as per statement of account of the opposite parties, the total consumption of water would be 132 KL + 264 KL + 280 KL = 686 KL. But as per Ext. P7 consumer's meter card, the total consumption during the said period is 514 KL. The meter reading stated in the version is not tallying with the meter reading as per Ext. P7 as on 11/94. Further it remains uncertain how opposite parties have arrived at such calculation separately for 6 months from 12/92 to 05/93, 12 months from 01/93 to 05/94 and 5 months from 06/94 to 10/94 by a single meter reading on 11/94. As per Ext. P7, meter reading on 11/2000 was 5107 KL. That is from 11/94 to 11/2000 water consumption would become 5107-514=4593 KL. As per the statement of account in the version and counter affidavit from 11/94 to 03/99(for 53 months) monthly consumption was 56 KL. That is the total water consumption during the said period would be 56 KL X 53= 2968 KL from 04/99 to 09/01 for 30 months monthly consumption stated in the version/counter affidavit is 56 KL. That is the total consumption during the said period would become 56x30=1680 KL. No meter reading was seen taken on 09/01 as per Ext. P7. As per Ext. P7 last meter reading was on 11/2000, on which the meter reading was 5107 KL on 11/94 reading was 514 KL, that is from 11/94 to 11/2000, the total water consumption was 5107-514 KL = 4593 KL. It is to be noted that meter reading was recorded as on 11/2000 in Ext. P7 consumer's meter card. It still remains uncertain how opposite parties have arrived at such calculation separately for 53 months from 11/94 to 03/99 and for 30 months from 04/99 to 09/2001 by a single meter reading on 11/2000. Any change in the monthly consumption of water as stated in the version without supporting document, would invite varied slab for the calculation of water charge which would definitely saddle the consumer. On a perusal of the statement of account as per version and affidavit, it is seen that the statement would never tally with the reading recorded in the premises meter card. At this juncture, we cannot accept the statement of the opposite party as such, and the bill issued by the opposite party on account of unjustified statement of account deserves to be cancelled. Further though meter reading was taken on 11/94, no additional bill was seen issued by opposite party immediately after the said meter reading. Similarly the next meter reading was taken on 11/2000, but no bill was seen issued immediately thereafter. The action of opposite parties would definitely be against the provision 13 of the Water Supply Regulations. Taking into consideration of the totality of circumstances, we find the notice issued by the opposite party claiming an arrears of Rs. 15736/- is not genuine and hence the said notice is hereby quashed and complainant is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.15736/- as claimed by opposite parties. Opposite parties shall raise fresh bill on the basis of provisional invoice cards for the whole period from 11/94 onwards after the reduction of the amounts already remitted by the complainant during the said period.

In the result, the notice dated 22.06.2002 issued to the complainant claiming a sum of Rs. 15734/- is cancelled. Opposite party shall raise fresh claim based on provisional invoice cards for the whole period from 11/94 onwards after reduction of the amounts already remitted by the complainant during the said period. There will be no order as to compensation and costs in facts and circumstances of the case.

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 day of 29^th November 2008.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 336/2002

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of provisional invoice card of Con. No. MP-15

dated 11.12.1992.

P2 - Photocopy of receipts dated 07.11.1996 dated 11.12.1992 and

provisional invoice card with period of monthly remittance.

P3 - Photocopy of provisional invoice card.

P4 - Photocopy of notice dated 22.06.2002.

P5 - Photocopy of letter issued to the opposite party.

P6 - Photocopy of provisional invoice card.

P7 - Photocopy of consumer meter card.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb