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. 228/2002 Filed on 05/06/2002

Dated: 30..04..2010

Complainant:

Sathyabhama Amma, T.C.40/882-3, Mampuzha School Road, Sreevaraham, Thiruvananthapuram.

(T.K.Ananda Padmanabhan)

Opposite parties:

1. Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Assistant Engineer, Kuriathy Sub Division, Chalai Section, K.W.A., Thiruvananthapuram.

    

   (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 30..12..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 12..11..2009, the Forum on 30..04..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, the complainant is the owner of the building bearing T.C.40/882-3 and a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. MD 10362/D, that the connection has been under domestic category, that complainant was provided with the Provisional Invoice Card for monthly remittance of Rs.39/- which the complainant was paid regularly, that there was a hasty step to increase the monthly remittances but the same was dropped taking into consideration of the repeated representations and complaints of the complainant. It is further submitted by the complainant that the water meter itself is not working, that while so opposite party issued a bill dated 31/03/2001 for Rs. 8,145/- being the arrears upto 2/2001, that in the bill itself it is mentioned that the water meter is not working, that the bill issued by opposite party is erroneous, that on a representation before the Executive Engineer complainant was permitted to pay the aforesaid amount by 5 installments and it was assured by the opposite parties that water meter will be replaced before the payment of the second installment, that though complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1,778/- opposite parties hardly cared to replace the water meter but issued another bill dated on 28/2/02 for Rs. 7,764/- being the arrears upto January 2002. The act of the opposite party in not rectifying the bill amount not replacing the faulty meter amounts to clear deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to take proper meter reading and fix the monthly remittance accordingly and to ascertain the working condition of the present meter and replace the same if found defective.

2. Opposite party filed version contending that the aforesaid connection was given on 3/8/1992, that at the time of connection a Provisional Invoice Card for Rs. 57/- was issued to the consumer for making monthly water charge remittance regularly,that provisionally fixed monthly rate can be increased or decreased in line with the periodical consumption of water from the connection, if the meter is working properly, that otherwise opposite party has the right to fix the monthly consumption as recorded by the water meter during a particular period during which the meter installed at the premises was registering correctly, if the consumer has any objection, she has the right to prefer an appeal to the Executive Engineer within 20 days of the receipt of the bill prepared, that the consumer shall take initiative to replace the defective meter by producing a sound water meter for replacement. Complainant has not approached the officer concerned for replacement of the defective meter, that the meter attached to the connection was found defective after recording a final reading as 615kl on 10/12/1993 though the consumer was aware of this fact she has not taken initiative to replace the defective water meter. Due to non payament of water charges, arrears accumulated in the consumer account. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, that the consumer has been using water from the connection for long period without remitting water charges. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as claimed by opposite parties vide bill dated 31/3/2001?

    

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

    

3. Whether complainant is entitled to compensation and costs?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of herself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and has marked Exts. P1 to P4. In rebuttal, 2^nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not produce any documents.

4. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No.MD/10362/D and connection is under domestic category. It has been the case of the complainant, that she was provided with the Provisional Invoice Card which provided for a monthly remittance of Rs.39/- and she was paying the said amount regularly and that there was a hasty step to increase the monthly remittance but the same was dropped on the complaints of the petition, that the water meter itself is not working. It has also been the case of the complainant that she received a bill dated 31/3/2001 from opposite parties directing her to pay a sum of Rs. 8,145/- being the arrear upto 2/01, that on a representation before the Executive Engineer, she was permitted to pay the same by five installments and it was assured by opposite parties that the water meter will be replaced before the payment of the second installment, that accordingly complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1,778/-, but opposite parties hardly cared to replace the water meter, rather issued another bill dated 28/2/02 for Rs. 7,764/-. Ext. P1 is the consumer meter card. As per Ext. P1 date of connection was on 3/8/1992, meter readings were recorded as 28kl on 8/92 and 200kl on 11/92, thereafter it is seen recorded that meter reading 'not clear'. Ext. P2 is the consumer bill dated 31/3/2001 for Rs. 8,145/-. Ext. P3 is the consumer bill dated 28/2/02 for Rs. 7,764/-. A perusal of Exts.P2 & P3 reveals that meter readings not recorded therein, status of meter: 'not working', average consumption: 38kl, monthly charge: Rs. 132/-. Ext. P4 is the original receipt dated 4/5/2001 for Rs.1,778/- issued by opposite parties to complainant. Opposite parties resisted the complaint by submitting that at the time of connection a Provisional Invoice Card for Rs.57/- was issued to consumer for making monthly water charge remittance, regularly, that provisionally fixed monthly rate can be increased or decreased in line with the periodical consumption of water from the connection, if the meter is working properly; that the meter No. 104326 attached to the connection was found defective after recording a final reading as 615kl on 10/12/93 and that eventhough the consumer was aware of the fact, she has not taken initiative to replace the defective water meter. It is argued by opposite parties that the consumer is not a regular payee of water charges and due to non-payment of water charges, arrears accumulated in the consumer account. Submission urged by the opposite party is that the monthly consumption was fixed as 38kl, which is arrived at for the total consumption of 615kl for the period from 8/92 to 11/93. It is pertinent to point out that as per Ext. P1 consumer's meter card meter reading is seen recorded upto 11/92 thereafter, it is seen recorded that meter reading 'not clear', that opposite party did not furnish any material including meter reading register/ledger to substantiate their contention that meter readings as on 11/93 was 615kl. Exts. P2 & P3 bills are seen raised on the basis of the assumption of monthly consumption at 38kl; As per the evidence available on records water meter is not functioning. As per water supply regulations, the faulty meter shall be replaced with a new meter by the consumer. Faulty meter not replaced so far. In view of the foregoing discussions and evidence available on records, we find justice will be well met if complainant is directed to install a new meter with the consent of the opposite parties and opposite parties are directed to raise fresh bill on the basis of average reading for 6 months, for the whole period retrospectively from the date of connection (8/92) to 2/02 after adjusting the amounts if any remitted by the consumer towards water charges during the said period.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Exts. P3 & P4 consumer bills dated 30/03/2001 and 28/02/2002 issued by opposite parties are cancelled. Opposite parties shall permit the complainant to install a new water meter at complainant's own cost and after installation of the meter, opposite parties shall raise fresh bill on the basis of average readings for 6 months for the whole period retrospectively from the date of connection (8/92) to 2/02, after adjusting the amount, if any, remitted by the consumer towards water charges 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 30^th day of April, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

C.C.No.228/2002

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness: NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Original consumer's Meter Card.

P2 : Consumer bill dated 31/03/2001 for Rs.8,145/-.

P3 : Consumer bill dated 28/2/2002 for Rs. 7,764/-.

P4 : Original receipt dated 4/5/2001 for Rs. 1,778/-.

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV.Opposite parties documents : NIL

PRESIDENT