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. 269/2002 Filed on 27.06.2002

Dated : 29.11.2008

Complainant:

C. Sureshkumar, S/o K. Chellappan, AvanakkumvilaVeedu, T.C 13/1502, Burma Road, Kumarapuram, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. M. Jayachandran Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Water Works, Central Division, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Water Works Central Sub Division, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. C. Sasidharan Pillai)

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 is the owner of the residential house bearing No. T.C 13/1502, Burma Road, Kumarapuram. The said property was acquired by the father of the complainant late Sri. K. Chellappan. Sri. K. Chellappan passed away in the year 1983 and on his death the said property was inherited to the complainant and complainant is in possession and occupation of the said building. The said house is having a domestic water connection bearing No. PLM/4575/D given by Kerala Water Authority. On the death of Sri. K. Chellappan complainant applied to the opposite parties to transfer the ownership of the water connection in the name of the complainant. Water Authority demanded production of documents to prove the ownership of the property by the complainant. As the same was not available at that time, the name of the owner of the water connection is still in the name of Sri. K. Chellappan. Complainant is staying in the said building since 1985 and has been paying the water bills regularly. In 1985 the water meter stopped functioning and complainant submitted a complaint to the opposite party. Opposite party demanded purchase of a new water meter and complainant purchased a new water meter and the same was installed by opposite party. The new meter installed by opposite party did not work from the date of installation itself. Complainant lodged a complaint to Water Authority and opposite parties have advised the complainant to pay minimum charge per month. The minimum charge per month was fixed as Re.1/-. Thereafter opposite parties demanded payment of Rs. 10/- per month. Complainant fearing disconnection paid Rs. 10/- per month. On 23.01.1993 opposite parties issued a disconnection notice demanding payment of arrears of Rs. 1384/-. Complainant was forced to pay the said amount to avoid disconnection of water supply. Thereafter Water Authority increased the monthly rate to Rs. 21/- that is from 16.10.1985 onwards and complainant was paying the said amount. Opposite party has not taken any action for replacing the non-working meter till this date. Complainant received a demand bill dated 31.12.2001 for Rs. 4993/-, another bill dated 20.02.2002 for Rs. 5177/-, another bill dated 30.04.2002 for Rs. 5361/- and finally another bill for Rs. 5545/- dated 12.06.2002. Complainant is willing to pay the actual water charges based on actual consumption of water. The action of opposite parties to demand Rs. 5545/- is illegal. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party not to proceed with the recovery of Rs. 5545/- from the complainant, to instal a new meter in good working condition in the premises and to take timely meter reading.

Opposite parties filed version contending that the averment in para 1 of the complaint is to be put into strict proof by the complainant. Averment in para 2, 3 and 4 are admitted. From 1985 onwards opposite party has charged a meter hire of Rs. 1/-. Later the same was revised to Rs. 10/- per month. On 23.01.1993 opposite party issued a disconnection notice demanding a payment of arrears of Rs. 1384/- and complainant paid the said amount. For replacing the non-working meter consumer has to produce new meter. Consumer paid as per the amount average upto 11/96. The bill is prepared as per the rules in force and consumer is bound to pay the same.

The points that would arise for consideration are:-

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

2. Whether complainant is liable for the amount as claimed by the opposite parties?

3. Whether opposite party is liable to instal a new meter in the premises?

4. Other reliefs and costs.

To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P4 series. To support the contention in the version, 2^nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit.

Points (i) to (iv):- It has been the case of the complainant that complainant's father was the consumer of Kerala Water Authority with consumer number PLM/4575/D and that complainant's father died in the year 1983 and on his death complainant became the owner of the premises having the aforesaid connection and that complainant applied to opposite parties to transfer the ownership of the water connection in his name but opposite parties demanded production of documents to prove the ownership of the property. It has also been the case of the complainant that as the documents of the said property was not available at that time the ownership is still in the name of complainant's father Sri. K. Chellappan in the records of opposite parties. Submission by the complainant is that the complainant is staying in the said premises since 1985 onwards. But complainant did not produce any records to show that complainant is the owner of the said premises having the aforesaid water connection. Complainant has produced water bills issued by the opposite parties in the name of complainant's father Sri. K. Chellappan from which we can presume that complainant is the beneficiary of the said water connection. The said consumer bills have been marked as Ext. P3 series which include consumer bills dated 31.01.2002 for Rs. 5177/-, wherein monthly water charge claimed is Rs. 87/-, while the status of the water meter is not working and arrears upto 12/01 is Rs. 5090/-. Bill dated 12.06.2002 was issued for Rs. 5545/-, of which Rs. 5458/- is towards arrears and monthly water charge is Rs. 87/-, while the status of the meter is not working. All other consumer bills are prior dated bills. In all the bills, the status of the meter is mentioned as not working. Even in the absence of meter reading, opposite parties have calculated the monthly charge at Rs. 87/-. On a perusal of prior bills, it is seen that from 1986 onwards, water meter has not been working. It is submitted by the complainant that his father died in the year 1983. Ownership is still in the name of the deceased father of the complainant. Even after a lapse of 25 years, consumer is a deceased person in the official record of opposite parties. There is specific provision for change of ownership. If the beneficiary or legal representative of the deceased consumer did not take any action to change ownership, as required by the Act, opposite parties could initiate the lawful action to disconnect the said connection. No action is seen taken by the opposite parties in this regard. The case of the complainant is that complainant has been staying in the said premises since 1985 onwards and paying the water bills regularly and that in 1985 the water meter stopped functioning and on demand by opposite parties complainant purchased a new water meter and handed over the same to the opposite parties and the same was installed in the year 1985 and that the installed new meter did not work from the day of installation itself and on intimating the same to the opposite party, complainant was advised to pay minimum charge per month and complainant remitted the same and thereafter opposite parties demanded a payment of Rs. 10/- per month which also paid by the complainant. Further on 23.01.1993 opposite party issued disconnection notice demanding payment of arrears of Rs. 1384/- which was also remitted by the complainant to avoid disconnection of water supply. Complainant has no case that he has not used water from the opposite party. It is pertinent to note that from 1985 onwards the meter has not been working. During the said period opposite parties had issued bills to the complainant as per Ext. P1 series. Opposite parties have produced copies of ledger on application filed by the complainant, the said ledger has been marked as Ext. P4 series. As per Ext. P4series, it is recorded that water charge from 16.10.1995 to 9/91 is Rs. 696/- and that as per instruction of Assistant Engineer water charge is assessed on the basis of the plinth area of construction of house and as per report of 10/91 to 01/93, water charge is fixed at Rs. 688/-. Thus total amount comes to Rs. 1384/-. As per Ext. P4 series(consumer ledger copies) from 02/93 to 05/93 water charge is Rs. 172/-, from 06/93 to 05/94 water charge is Rs. 720/-, from 06/94 to 03/95 water charge is Rs. 680/-, from 04/95 to 12/95 water charge is Rs. 748/- and on 12/96 water charge is Rs. 68/-. During the said period nothing is recorded in meter reading column. Even in the absence of meter working, opposite party has calculated water charge without any basis. It is recorded as per Ext. P4 series that from 22.05.1990 onwards meter reading status is non-working. In view of the above, we find the bill dated 12.06.2002 for Rs. 5545/- issued by the opposite parties is without any basis, which deserves to be cancelled and complainant is not liable for the bill amount as claimed by the opposite parties. Preparation of illegal bill would amount to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Next point requiring consideration is whether the opposite party is liable to install a new meter in the premises. From materials on record it is obvious that water meter is not working from 1990 onwards. Provisions under clause (b) and (c) of Regulation 12 of the Water Supply Regulations shall apply for replacement of water meter. As per clause(b) of Provision 12, the meter at the premises shall be provided by the consumer and as under clause (c) of the said provision, meter shall be procured by the applicant and produced before the Assistant Executive Engineer for inspection and installation at site. Hence we find opposite party is not liable to instal a new meter in the premises. In this case, still the connection is in the name of deceased K. Chellappan. Submission by the complainant is that complainant is staying in the above said premises since 1985 onwards. Complainant did not produce any records to show that complainant is the owner of the said premises. If complainant produces documents showing his ownership of the said premises, to the satisfaction of opposite parties, opposite parties shall change the ownership of the said water connection in the name of complainant. Thereafter complainant shall apply for replacement of water meter as required under the provisions of Clause (b) and (c) of Regulation 12.

In the result, complaint is allowed. The consumer bill dated 12.06.2002 for Rs. 5545/- issued by the opposite party in the name of K. Chellappan is hereby cancelled. Opposite party is directed to raise fresh bills on the basis of minimum monthly consumption after adjusting the amount already remitted by the complainant during the said period. If the above said water connection is changed in the name of the complainant, then the complainant shall apply for replacement of water meter as required under the provisions of clause (b) and (c) of Regulation 12. 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. 269/2002

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - B.S. Rajeev

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of notice dated 23.01.1993 of Con. No. PLM 4575

P2 - Photocopy of letter dated 26.01.1993.

P3 - Photocopy of consumer bill dated 31.01.2002 of Con. No.

PLM/4575/D.

(a) - Photocopy of consumer bill dated 12.06.2002 of Con. No.

PLM/4575/D.

(b) - Photocopy of consumer bill dated 11.04.2002 of Con. No.

PLM/4575/D.

(c ) - Photocopy of consumer bill dated 30.11.2001 of Con. No.

PLM/4575/D.

P4 - Photocopy of ledger of account No. PLM 4575 Dr.

16.10.1985.

(a) - Photocopy of Account No. PLM 4575

(b) - Photocopy of collection register.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb