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. 243/2001 Filed on 11.06.2001

Dated : 15.07.2010

Complainant :

Thankappan Nair. K, Anjitha, T.C 19/2237, KMA No. 3718, Vattavila, Thirumala P.O.

(Appeared in person)

Opposite parties :

1. The Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Managing Director.

    

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Sub Division, P.T.P Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

3. Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, East Sub Division, Kunchalumoodu, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. S. Bhanu Krishnakumar)

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 23.03.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.04.2010, the Forum on 15.07.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The case of the complainant is that complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. KMA 3718/D, that the meter reader visited his premises regularly once in six months and took readings, but no adjustment bill issued during past several years since 1993, that there was no due from the complainant, that when complainant approached opposite parties' office to remit advance payment on January 2001 he was directed by the revenue section clerk to come on the month of March 2001 due to non-working of the computer, that opposite parties issued the computerized bill dated originally as 31.01.2001 and then corrected as 07.02.2001 for Rs. 1,495/-, that on receiving the bill complainant approached the opposite parties and they assured that they will do the needful things for rectification if any, but without considering the complainant's petition opposite parties disconnected water connection on 22.03.2001 and took away the working meter. Since there was no other alternative for the complainant, complainant applied for reconnection and purchased a new meter and remitted reconnection charge and water connection was restored on 23.03.2001. Opposite parties are not entitled to claim any amount by way of arrears as it is vitiated by negligence and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to return the amount received as arrears and other charges towards reconnection and to pay compensation along with costs of the proceedings.

Opposite parties filed version contending interalia that complaint is not maintainable, that complainant has been remitting water charges periodically for only 10 KL minimum consumption, that as per the last meter reading it was found that the monthly consumption came to 25 KL per month, thereby calculation revised and arrears came to Rs. 1,495/- upto 02/2001, that meter reader visited complainant's residence regularly and found meter was not working and the same was informed to the complainant at that time itself. Complainant did not take any steps to replace the defective water meter. Non-payment of the amount within due date led to the disconnection of water connection. There is no fault on the part of the opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

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

2. Whether complainant is entitled to compensation? If so, at what quantum?

3. Whether complainant is entitled to cost?

    

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P11. In rebuttal, 3^rd opposite party has filed affidavit and has marked Ext. D1.

Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. KMA 3718/D. It has been the case of the complainant that the meter reader visited his premises regularly once in six months and took readings, but no adjustment bill was issued during the past several years since 1993, that there was no due from the complainant. Ext. P1 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 07.02.2001 for Rs. 1,562/-. On perusal of Ext. P1 it is seen that the status of meter is working, average consumption is 25 KL, while meter reading is not recorded. Ext. P2 consists of copies of 3 receipts dated 1) 11.03.1996 for Rs. 114/- for the period from 03/96 to 08/96, 2) 11.03.1997 for Rs. 114/- for the period from 03/97 to 08/97 and 3) 09.03.1998 for Rs. 114/- for the period from 03/98 to 08/98. Ext. P3 consists of copies of 3 receipts dated 1) 13.09.1996 for Rs. 114/- for the period from 09/96 to 02/97, 2) 12.02.1998 for Rs. 134/- for the period from 09/97 to 02/98 and 3) 04.11.1998 for Rs. 114/- for the period from 09/98 to 02/99. Ext. P4 consists of copies of 4 receipts dated 1) 04.03.1999 for Rs. 114/- for the period from 03/99 to 08/99, 2) 07.09.1999 for Rs. 125/- for the period from 09/99 to 01/2000, 3) 10.02.2000 for Rs. 132/- for 02/2000 to 07/2000 and 4) 10.08.2000 for Rs. 110/- for 08/00 to 12/00. Ext. P5 is the copy of the receipt dated 12.10.1999 for Rs. 95/- upto 02/96. Ext. P6 is the copy of the provisional invoice card. Ext. P7 consists of copies of 3 receipts dated 1) 10.05.1993 for Rs. 502/- for 92 May to 93 May, 2) 07.02.1995 for Rs. 54/-. Ext. P8 is the copy of the bill dated 20.03.2001 for water meter issued by Esskay Trade Links to complainant. Ext. P10 is the copy of the letter addressed to opposite parties informing them that complainant has been remitting water charge without any default. Ext. P11 is the copy of the letter addressed to 3^rd opposite party by the complainant. On perusal of Ext. P6 payment schedule, and Ext. P11, it is seen that complainant had remitted water charges upto 12.10.2000. It has been the case of the complainant that due to ill health, complainant sent his son with all cash bills to 3^rd opposite party on receiving bill dated 07.02.2001, opposite parties assured that they would do the needful things for rectification, but contrary to assurance given by 3^rd opposite party and without issuing disconnection notice to complainant, opposite parties disconnected water connection and took away the working meter along with them, that on the next day dated 23.03.2001, the complainant's son compelled to remit an amount of Rs. 1,701/- for the purpose of restoring the water connection. Opposite party resisted the complainant by submitting that complainant has been remitting the water charge periodically for only 10 KL for minimum consumption, that as per last meter reading it was found that the monthly consumption was 25 KL per month, then revised the calculation and arrears came to Rs. 1,495/- upto 02/2001. It is submitted by opposite parties that meter reader visited the complainant's residence regularly and found the meter was not working and the same was informed to the complainant and complainant did not take any steps to replace the defective meter. It is further submitted by the opposite parties, that when it was working the monthly consumption was found to be 25 KL. According to opposite parties, government had enhanced the water charge from 04/99 onwards, that complainant remitted Rs. 114/- on 04.03.1999 for a period from 03/99 to 08/99 at the rate of Rs. 19/- per month, instead of enhanced rate at Rs. 22/- per month. It is admitted by opposite parties that complainant remitted Rs. 1,701/- on 23.03.2001 for restoration of water connection. Ext. D1 is the copy of consumer ledger. On perusal of Ext. D1, it is seen that meter was replaced on 14.02.2001, on 24.08.1992, meter reading was 11905, on 02.12.1995 meter reading was zero, after replacement of meter on 14.02.2001, meter reading varied from 265 KL on 06.06.2002 to 450 on 19.05.2003. It is averred in the version that meter reader visited the complainant's residence regularly and found the meter was not working that had informed the complainant at that time itself, but he did not take any steps to replace the defective meter. It is pertinent to point out that, opposite parties did not furnish any materials to show that they have informed the complainant to replace the water meter, nor opposite parties furnished any material to show that the meter was defective. If opposite parties visited the complainant's residence at regular intervals as stipulated in the Regulations, what prevented them to initiate action against consumer then and there. Had opposite parties informed the complainant about the faultiness of water meter, opposite parties would definitely have produced materials if any, to show the same. It is pertinent to point out that complainant was not a defaulter in payment of water charges as per PIC. No evidence adduced by opposite parties to show that they have issued adjustment bill to complainant at stipulated intervals nor did opposite parties have a case that complainant failed to remit the adjustment bill. On 12.03.2001, after a lapse of 9 years, opposite parties, having been awakened by meter reader, issued a computerised bill to complainant for Rs. 1,495/- towards arrear amount without mentioning the period of arrears. It is to be noted that opposite parties issued bill to complainant contrary to the provisions and acted against the principles of natural justice. It is the specific case of the complainant, without considering his petition and without issuing any disconnection notice, opposite parties disconnected the water connection and took away the working meter with them. Since the meter is with opposite parties, onus of proving faultiness of meter rests with the opposite parties. Non-issuance of any adjustment bill for a period of 9 years and issuance of arrear bill thereafter all on a sudden to a consumer who has not been a defaulter in payment of water charges as per Provisional Invoice Card during the disputed period and disconnection of water connection and taking away of the water meter without issuing a disconnection notice would definitely amount to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is further to be noted that raising of arrear bill after a lapse of 9 years due to the inaction of the opposite parties would definitely saddle the consumer with huge amount. Further, complainant was forced to remit further charges for restoration of water connection also. Opposite parties are liable to compensate the consumer in terms of money.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and cost. Opposite parties shall adjust the said amount in future bills.

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 July 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 243/2001

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of consumer bill dated 07.02.2001.

P2 - Copy of receipts.

P3 - Copy of receipts

P4 - Copy of receipts

P5 - Copy of receipt dated 12.10.1995.

P6 - Copy of provisional invoice card

P7 - Copy of three receipts.

P8 - Copy of cash/credit bill dated 23.03.2001

P9 - Copy of receipt dated 23.03.2001

P10 - Copy of letter dated 08.09.1999 addressed to opposite party.

P11 - Copy of letter dated 14.03.2001 addressed to opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of consumer ledger.

PRESIDENT

jb