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. 431/2002 Filed on 09.10.2002

Dated : 15.09.2009

Complainant:

T.R. Omanakuttan, T.C 19/997, Thamalam, Poojappura P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-12.

Opposite parties:

1. Kerala Water Authority, represented by the Managing Director, KWA, Office of the Managing Director, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. The Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, East Sub Division, Kunchalummoodu, Karamana, Poojappura P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-12.

(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 23.10.2003, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.07.2009, the Forum on 15.09.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. KMA 6362, that the said connection was taken in the name of Leela Bai Amma who is the house owner and that complainant is residing in the said house on rent. He paid water charges in advance without default for 3 years. When complainant approached for remitting water charges for the next year 2^nd opposite party informed him about the arrears as Rs. 3,938/- and without clearing the said arrears opposite party would not accept water charges for the future period. Complainant made a complaint to Executive Engineer upon which he found abnormality in water consumption and reduced it from 91.2 KL to 62.4 KL per month from 07/00 to 06/01. Dissatisfied with the said finding complainant made a complaint to the Minister concerned who forward the same to the 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party after studying the problems forwarded the complaint with his remarks therein to Assistant Executive Engineer who found that excess consumption was abnormal and revised the consumption to 28 KL per month from 08/02, 06/01. 2^nd opposite party did not implement the order. Opposite parties demanded high amount at the rate of Rs. 495/- per month on the basis of 91.2 KL per month, whereas complainant had paid Rs. 112/- per month as against Rs. 495/-, while the charge for 28 KL per month is Rs. 74/-. Complainant claims refund of the extra amount collected from him from July 2000 to June 2001. Hence this complaint to implement the order of the Assistant Executive Engineer dated 18.09.2002, to refund the excess amount collected by the opposite party from the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.

Opposite parties filed version contending that complainant was remitting water charges for 10 KL per month which was based on the minimum average recorded in the provisional invoice card. Outstanding arrears of the complainant was Rs. 3,938/-. As per existing law no water meter meter can be changed without remitting the upto date water charges. During the period 06/01, there was a hike in the water charge, consumption was found abnormal. The order of Executive Engineer dated 17.07.2002 to reduce the Provisional Invoice Card to 62.4 KL per month was accepted. Order of the Assistant Executive Engineer reducing the monthly consumption to 28 KL per month stands invalid since the order of the Executive Engineer was already taken into account. The order of the Superior Officer cannot be waived without his concurrence. There is no abuse of law. The consumer was made the payment as per Provisional Invoice Card. Complainant is bound to pay the arrears. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is abnormal readings from 08/00 to 05/01?

2. Whether the order dated 18.09.2002 of the Assistant Executive Engineer is genuine?

3. Whether opposite party has collected extra amount from the complainant?

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

5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P9 were marked. In rebuttal, 2^nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not file any documents.

Points (i) to (v):- Admittedly, complainant is the beneficiary of the consumer No. KMA 6362 which stands in the name of Smt. Leela Bai Amma. It has been the case of the complainant that he is residing in the building, in respect of which the said connection is taken, on rent, that he used to pay water charges without default, that for the last three years the complainant used to pay water charges in advance for one year each, that when the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for remitting the water charges for the next year, the 2^nd opposite party asked him of arrears of Rs. 3,938/- towards water charge and that it was informed to him that without clearing the said arrears opposite party would not accept the water charges for the future period. It has also been the case of the complainant that he made complaint to Executive Engineer upon which, he found abnormality in water consumption and reduced it from 91.2 kl to 62.4 kl per month from 07/00 to 06/01, that thereafter dissatisfied with the said finding the complainant made a complaint to the Minister concerned, who forwarded the same to the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party, after studying the problems of the complainant forwarded the complaint with his remarks therein to Assistant Executive Engineer at PTP Nagar who found that the excess consumption was abnormal and revised the consumption to 28 Kl per month from 08/00 to 06/01, but 2^nd opposite party did not implement the order. It is argued by the complainant that opposite parties demanded very high amount at the rate of Rs. 495/- per month on the basis of 91.2 KL per month from July 2000 to June 2001. It is further argued by the complainant that he had paid Rs. 112/- per month as against Rs. 495/- during the said period, that the charge for 28 KL per month is Rs. 74/-, as such he is entitled for refund of extra amount collected from him from July 2000 to June 2001. Ext. P1 is the copy of the provisional invoice card issued to consumer No. 6362. On a perusal of Ext. P1 it is seen recorded that the arrear amount of Rs. 3321/- is due upto 12/98, that arrear amount of Rs. 876/- is due upto 02/01, that arrear amount of Rs. 3,938/- is due upto 03/02 and Rs. 4,304/- upto 07/02. It is the very case of the complainant that opposite party had collected Rs. 2,041/- from him on 19.01.2000 and Rs. 136.2 on 15.02.2000 vide bill dated 15.02.2000 towards water charges, thereby all the dues had been paid. It is further argued that he had remitted Rs. 475/- on 13.03.2000 towards the water charges for the next period from 03/01 to 02/02 vide bill No. C-120007 dated 13.03.2000. Thereafter complainant was forced to remit Rs. 876/- as arrears vide bill No. C-147347 dated 21.03.2001 and another Rs. 1,284/- towards water charges from March 2001 to 02/02 vide bill No. C-147348 dated 21.03.2001. All the said payments are seen recorded in the payment schedule overleaf of Ext. P1. It is further stated that when the complainant went for paying water charges from 03/02 to 02/03, opposite parties adopted the usual practice and demanded Rs. 3,938/- as arrears, that on enquiry he was informed that water consumption from June 2000 to July 2001 was very high at the rate 91.2 KL per month and the amount payable was Rs. 495/- per month. Ext. P2 is the copy of provisional invoice card wherein monthly amount to be remitted is recorded as Rs. 79/- and an arrear of Rs. 4,304/- is recorded as due upto 07/02. Ext. P3 is the receipt dated 13.03.2000 for Rs. 475/- issued by the opposite party. Ext. P4 is the copy of the receipt dated 21.03.2001 for Rs. 876/-. Ext. P5 is the copy of the receipt dated 21.03.2001 for Rs. 1,284/-. Ext. P6 is the copy of the letter dated 17.07.2002 addressed to the complainant by the Executive Engineer. As per Ext. P6 it is seen stated that very high monthly consumption is noted from 19.07.2000 to 25.06.2001. It is further stated in Ext. P6 that new meter installed on 14.06.1998, on 14.06.1999 meter reading was 206 KL, that is the average monthly consumption was 12.9 KL and water charge per month was Rs. 31/- upto 3/99 and Rs. 41/- from 04/99. Further meter reading rose to 255 KL upto 18.09.1999, thereby the monthly consumption rose 25.5 KL and monthly charge rose to Rs. 49/-. Thereafter meter reading rose to 357 KL upto 29.01.2000 and average consumption became 23.3 KL and monthly water charge rose to Rs. 72/-. On 19.07.2000 meter reading mentioned in Ext. P6 is 549 KL, that is average monthly charge rose to Rs. 112. Again on 25.06.2001 meter reading rose to 1571 KL, that is average consumption became 91.2 KL and monthly charge became Rs. 495/-. Thereafter it is seen that meter reading became 1874 KL on 18.12.2001- that is average consumption was 24.5 KL and monthly charge became Rs. 69/-. As per Ext. P6 Executive Engineer noted excess consumption during 07/00 to 06/01 which might have been due to some problems in the system or due to unidentified leakage and exact reason not forthcoming from the enquiry and hence the Executive Engineer fixed the chargeable quantity during 07/00 to 06/01 as 62.4 against 91.2 as observed. Ext. P9 is the report from Assistant Executive Engineer. It is stated in Ext. P9 that “on verification of the reading, it is seen that abnormal reading from 08/00 to 05/01. This period the average consumption may be fixed 28 KL from 08/00 to 05/01. The bill may be revised and issued to consumer”. From 02/98 to 01/00 it is seen that the average consumption raised from 12.9 KL to 23.3 KL, thereafter the average consumption rose to 34 KL which rose to 91.2 KL on 06/01 and fell to 24.5 KL on 07/01. As remarked by the Assistant Executive Engineer in Ext. P9, abnormal consumption is recorded from 08/00 to 05/01, for other period, the consumption was below 25 KL. No specific reason mentioned by opposite parties to substantiate the excess consumption from 08/00 to 05/01. In view of the foregoing discussions and in the light of the available records and considering the totality of circumstance and the pattern of average consumption we are of the view that justice will be well met if complainant is directed to remit water charge on the basis of consumption of 28 KL per month from 08/00 to 05/01.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party shall collect water charge by fixing average monthly consumption at 28 KL from 08/00 to 05/01 and shall adjust excess charge if any collected from the complainant during the said period towards prior arrears. The arrear amount of Rs. 3,938/- claimed by opposite party is hereby cancelled. There will be no compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. Both 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 15^th day of September 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 431/2002

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of provisional invoice card of Con. No. 6362

P2 - -do- dues upto 07/02

P3 - Photocopy of receipt dated 13.03.2000 for Rs. 475/-

P4 - Photocopy of receipt dated 21.03.2001 for Rs. 876/-

P5 - Photocopy of receipt dated 21.03.2001 for Rs. 1284/-/-

P6 - Photocopy of letter dated 17.07.2002 sent to the

complainant by the opposite party.

P7 - Photocopy of post card dated 03.07.2007

P8 - Photocopy of advocate notice dated 27.08.2002.

P9 - Photocopy of statement showing the arrears submitted by

opposite party.

P10 - Photocopy of Consumer Bill dated 05.09.2003 for Rs. 5060

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT