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. 351/2004 Filed on 07/09/2004 Dated: 30..09..2009
Complainant: Sobha K. Nair, T.C.14/679, Sudarsanam, Dalawa Road, Kadakampally, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.S. Laleedharan)
Opposite parties: Kerala Water Authority, Represented by its Managing Director, Jala Bhavan, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Division, Opp. Police Headquarters, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Advs. Santhamma Thomas & V.S. Hareendranath) 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 14/06/2006, 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..08..2009, the Forum on 30..09..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. PLM/2271/D, that the connection stands in the name of her father Sri. Kuttappan Nair, that after his death complainant is residing and using the said connection, that there was no water supply in the said connection prior to 14/4/2004, that complainant was purchasing 4500 litres of water per month from Kuttiganapathy lorry of water authority for Rs.300/-, thereafter, water supply was partly provided by the opposite parties, and that without supplying water to complainant opposite parties had issued a bill dated 20/08/2004 for Rs.4,279/-.Opposite parties have no right to collect the said amount from the complainant, since the water was not made available during the disputed period. Hence this complaint to declare that opposite parties are not entitled to collect amount as per bill dated 20/8/2004 from the complainant and to levy minimum charge of Rs.22/- per month from 14/4/2004 and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the consumer No. stands in the name of one Kuttappan Nair, that complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint, that the complainant has not initiated any steps to transfer the said water connection to her name, that consumer had paid water charges upto September 1998 for 22kl per month, that bi-monthly bills were issued , but the consumer had not paid any bills after 14/9/1998. So the bill dated 20/8/2004 for Rs.4,279/- for a period from September 1998 to July 2004 was issued, that the consumer did not pay the bill. So long as a water connection is live the consumer has to pay the water charges. There is no cause of action for the complaint. No deficiency in service is also seen alleged. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is liable to pay Rs.4,279/- vide bill dated 20/8/2004? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether complainant is entitled to get any other reliefs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. In rebuttal, 2nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit and Exts. D1 & D2 were marked. 5. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, the consumer No.PLM/2271/D stands in the name of the complainant's father. It has been the case of the complainant that her father died on 5th July 2002, and that there was no water supply in the said connection prior to 14/4/2004, thereafter, water supply was partly provided by the opposite parties. It has also been the case of the complainant that without supplying water to complainant opposite parties had issued a bill dated 20/08/2004 for Rs.4,279/-, and that in the absence of water supply in the said connection complainant was forced to purchase water from private party and that utmost opposite parties can collect only the minimum consumption (monthly) charge of Rs.22/- from the complainant. It has been argued by opposite parties that the consumer had paid water upto 9/98 for 22 kl per month that, opposite parties had issued the bill dated 20/8/2004 for Rs.4,279/- for 9/98 to 7/04 including the previous arrears. Ext.P1 is the bill dated 20/8/2004 for Rs.4,279/-. On a perusal of Ext. P1, it is seen that present and current reading not recorded, meter status is 'not working', monthly charge of Rs.56 + 2 = Rs.58/- is recorded for average consumption of 22 kl. Ext.P2 is the letter dated 14/4/2004 addressed to opposite parties by the complainant informing that for the last 4 and a half years, there was no water supply in the aforesaid connection, that consumer was purchasing 4500 litres water per month from Kuttiganapathy lorry of water authority and that water supply was made available from 14/4/2004 onwards. It is further seen in Ext.P2 that the Executive Engineer concerned permitted the consumer to remit Rs.4,027/- in 7 installments, and directed to replace the water meter after remittance of 1st installment. Ext.P3 is the letter dated 4/9/2004 from the Office of Assistant Engineer to complainant's father requesting him to replace the present water meter. It is further seen reported in Ext.P3 that the meter point is not access to the reader for reporting consumption. Ext.P4 is the copy of the letter dated 24/9/2004 addressed to Assistant Engineer by the complainant informing that, the averment in Ext.P3 that the meter point is not access to reader for recording consumption is not correct. It is further stated in Ext.P4 that there is no need for meter replacement. Complainant did not furnish the Provisional Invoice Card, although non-production of the same was pointed out by the opposite parties in the version, complainant did not mention in the affidavit about the period upto which she had remitted water charges, nor did complainant furnish prior receipts, if any, showing the remittance of water charges to opposite parties. Ext.P5 is the receipt dated 20/9/2004 for Rs.2,000/- which is seen remitted as per direction of this Forum in order to avoid disconnection of water connection in the aforesaid consumer number. It is pertinent to note that opposite parties have produced copy of the consumer ledger (Ext.D2). As per Ext.D2, meter reading on 28/11/2001 was 604 which continued upto 21/5/2002 thereafter no reading is seen recorded upto 21/8/2004, evidently meter status is 'not working'. It is the duty of the opposite parties to intimate the consumer to replace the faulty meter with a new one. It is only on 4/9/2004, opposite parties had requested the consumer to replace the faulty meter by Ext.P3. Ext.P1 bill, does not disclose the period from which water charges fell due. It is argued by the opposite parties that the scarcity of water in the complainant locality is not disputed whereas the opposite party is trying its level best to supply sufficient quantity of water to its consumers. It is the very case of the complainant that there was no water supply till 14/4/2004 and opposite parties did not furnish meter readings register. As per Ext.D2, consumer ledger meter readings are seen recorded from 28/11/2001 only, and that meter readings recorded as on 28/11/2001 was 604, which continued upto 21/5/2002, thereafter no reading is seen recorded, which strengthens the case of the complainant that there was no water supply till 14/4/2004 to said consumer number. There is no material to show that water was sufficiently available to the said consumer number during the disputed periods. It is pertinent to note that the scarcity of water in the complainant's locality is not disputed by the opposite parties and in Ext.P1 meter reading not recorded. In view of the above and in the light of available evidence on records we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if complainant is directed to remit minimum water charge of 10 kl per month during the disputed period from 9/98 to 20/8/2004. The amount of Rs.2,000/- already remitted by the complainant vide Ext.P5 dated 20/9/2004 need to be adjusted towards water charge during the disputed period and subsequent period. In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Consumer bill dated 20/8/2004 (Ext.P1) for Rs.4,279/- issued by the opposite parties are hereby cancelled. Opposite parties shall collect minimum water charge for 10 kl per month during the disputed period (from 9/98 to 8/04) from the complainant and shall adjust the amount of Rs.2,000/- already collected from the complainant vide Ext.P5 dated 20/9/2004 towards the aforesaid water charge during the disputed period and subsequent period. Complainant shall take steps to transfer the ownership of water connection and for replacement of water meter. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Parties are left to bear and suffer their own 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 30th day of September, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad. O.P. No. 351/2004 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness : NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of bill No.476 dated 20/8/2004 issued by opposite party. P2 : “ letter dated 21/4/2004 issued to the complainant by opposite party. P3 : Copy of letter dated 4/9/2004 issued to Sri. R. Kuttappan Nair by opposite party. P4 : Bill No.198 dated 2/1/2006 for Rs.18,150/- issued to Sri. A. Kuttappan Nair by Sri. V. Thulaseedharan, Loading contractor. P5 : Receipt No.N-084978 dated 20/9/2004 for Rs.2,000/-
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents:
D1 : Consumer bill No.476 dated 20/8/2004 of con.No.PLM/2271/D.
D2 : Consumer ledger dated 20/9/2004 of consumer No.PLM/2271/D.
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. 351/2004 Filed on 07/09/2004 Dated: 30..09..2009
Complainant: Sobha K. Nair, T.C.14/679, Sudarsanam, Dalawa Road, Kadakampally, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.S. Laleedharan)
Opposite parties: Kerala Water Authority, Represented by its Managing Director, Jala Bhavan, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Division, Opp. Police Headquarters, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Advs. Santhamma Thomas & V.S. Hareendranath) 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 14/06/2006, 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..08..2009, the Forum on 30..09..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. PLM/2271/D, that the connection stands in the name of her father Sri. Kuttappan Nair, that after his death complainant is residing and using the said connection, that there was no water supply in the said connection prior to 14/4/2004, that complainant was purchasing 4500 litres of water per month from Kuttiganapathy lorry of water authority for Rs.300/-, thereafter, water supply was partly provided by the opposite parties, and that without supplying water to complainant opposite parties had issued a bill dated 20/08/2004 for Rs.4,279/-.Opposite parties have no right to collect the said amount from the complainant, since the water was not made available during the disputed period. Hence this complaint to declare that opposite parties are not entitled to collect amount as per bill dated 20/8/2004 from the complainant and to levy minimum charge of Rs.22/- per month from 14/4/2004 and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the consumer No. stands in the name of one Kuttappan Nair, that complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint, that the complainant has not initiated any steps to transfer the said water connection to her name, that consumer had paid water charges upto September 1998 for 22kl per month, that bi-monthly bills were issued , but the consumer had not paid any bills after 14/9/1998. So the bill dated 20/8/2004 for Rs.4,279/- for a period from September 1998 to July 2004 was issued, that the consumer did not pay the bill. So long as a water connection is live the consumer has to pay the water charges. There is no cause of action for the complaint. No deficiency in service is also seen alleged. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is liable to pay Rs.4,279/- vide bill dated 20/8/2004? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether complainant is entitled to get any other reliefs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. In rebuttal, 2nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit and Exts. D1 & D2 were marked. 5. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, the consumer No.PLM/2271/D stands in the name of the complainant's father. It has been the case of the complainant that her father died on 5th July 2002, and that there was no water supply in the said connection prior to 14/4/2004, thereafter, water supply was partly provided by the opposite parties. It has also been the case of the complainant that without supplying water to complainant opposite parties had issued a bill dated 20/08/2004 for Rs.4,279/-, and that in the absence of water supply in the said connection complainant was forced to purchase water from private party and that utmost opposite parties can collect only the minimum consumption (monthly) charge of Rs.22/- from the complainant. It has been argued by opposite parties that the consumer had paid water upto 9/98 for 22 kl per month that, opposite parties had issued the bill dated 20/8/2004 for Rs.4,279/- for 9/98 to 7/04 including the previous arrears. Ext.P1 is the bill dated 20/8/2004 for Rs.4,279/-. On a perusal of Ext. P1, it is seen that present and current reading not recorded, meter status is 'not working', monthly charge of Rs.56 + 2 = Rs.58/- is recorded for average consumption of 22 kl. Ext.P2 is the letter dated 14/4/2004 addressed to opposite parties by the complainant informing that for the last 4 and a half years, there was no water supply in the aforesaid connection, that consumer was purchasing 4500 litres water per month from Kuttiganapathy lorry of water authority and that water supply was made available from 14/4/2004 onwards. It is further seen in Ext.P2 that the Executive Engineer concerned permitted the consumer to remit Rs.4,027/- in 7 installments, and directed to replace the water meter after remittance of 1st installment. Ext.P3 is the letter dated 4/9/2004 from the Office of Assistant Engineer to complainant's father requesting him to replace the present water meter. It is further seen reported in Ext.P3 that the meter point is not access to the reader for reporting consumption. Ext.P4 is the copy of the letter dated 24/9/2004 addressed to Assistant Engineer by the complainant informing that, the averment in Ext.P3 that the meter point is not access to reader for recording consumption is not correct. It is further stated in Ext.P4 that there is no need for meter replacement. Complainant did not furnish the Provisional Invoice Card, although non-production of the same was pointed out by the opposite parties in the version, complainant did not mention in the affidavit about the period upto which she had remitted water charges, nor did complainant furnish prior receipts, if any, showing the remittance of water charges to opposite parties. Ext.P5 is the receipt dated 20/9/2004 for Rs.2,000/- which is seen remitted as per direction of this Forum in order to avoid disconnection of water connection in the aforesaid consumer number. It is pertinent to note that opposite parties have produced copy of the consumer ledger (Ext.D2). As per Ext.D2, meter reading on 28/11/2001 was 604 which continued upto 21/5/2002 thereafter no reading is seen recorded upto 21/8/2004, evidently meter status is 'not working'. It is the duty of the opposite parties to intimate the consumer to replace the faulty meter with a new one. It is only on 4/9/2004, opposite parties had requested the consumer to replace the faulty meter by Ext.P3. Ext.P1 bill, does not disclose the period from which water charges fell due. It is argued by the opposite parties that the scarcity of water in the complainant locality is not disputed whereas the opposite party is trying its level best to supply sufficient quantity of water to its consumers. It is the very case of the complainant that there was no water supply till 14/4/2004 and opposite parties did not furnish meter readings register. As per Ext.D2, consumer ledger meter readings are seen recorded from 28/11/2001 only, and that meter readings recorded as on 28/11/2001 was 604, which continued upto 21/5/2002, thereafter no reading is seen recorded, which strengthens the case of the complainant that there was no water supply till 14/4/2004 to said consumer number. There is no material to show that water was sufficiently available to the said consumer number during the disputed periods. It is pertinent to note that the scarcity of water in the complainant's locality is not disputed by the opposite parties and in Ext.P1 meter reading not recorded. In view of the above and in the light of available evidence on records we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if complainant is directed to remit minimum water charge of 10 kl per month during the disputed period from 9/98 to 20/8/2004. The amount of Rs.2,000/- already remitted by the complainant vide Ext.P5 dated 20/9/2004 need to be adjusted towards water charge during the disputed period and subsequent period. In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Consumer bill dated 20/8/2004 (Ext.P1) for Rs.4,279/- issued by the opposite parties are hereby cancelled. Opposite parties shall collect minimum water charge for 10 kl per month during the disputed period (from 9/98 to 8/04) from the complainant and shall adjust the amount of Rs.2,000/- already collected from the complainant vide Ext.P5 dated 20/9/2004 towards the aforesaid water charge during the disputed period and subsequent period. Complainant shall take steps to transfer the ownership of water connection and for replacement of water meter. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Parties are left to bear and suffer their own 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 30th day of September, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad. O.P. No. 351/2004 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness : NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of bill No.476 dated 20/8/2004 issued by opposite party. P2 : “ letter dated 21/4/2004 issued to the complainant by opposite party. P3 : Copy of letter dated 4/9/2004 issued to Sri. R. Kuttappan Nair by opposite party. P4 : Bill No.198 dated 2/1/2006 for Rs.18,150/- issued to Sri. A. Kuttappan Nair by Sri. V. Thulaseedharan, Loading contractor. P5 : Receipt No.N-084978 dated 20/9/2004 for Rs.2,000/-
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents:
D1 : Consumer bill No.476 dated 20/8/2004 of con.No.PLM/2271/D.
D2 : Consumer ledger dated 20/9/2004 of consumer No.PLM/2271/D.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | |
