KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 749/2015
JUDGMENT DATED:03.09.2018
(Against the order in C.C. 23/2012 of CDRF, Kottayam)
PRESENT :
HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- Kerala Water Authority, represented by the Managing Director, Jala Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.
- The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Health Sub Division, Kottayam-686 002.
(By Adv. Issac Samuel)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
P. Gopalakrishnan, Syamalalayam, Varthanagar, Kottayam-686 002.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
Opposite parties in CC. No. 23/2012 of CDRF Kottayam have filed this appeal challenging the Order dated 02.05.2015 passed by the Forum setting aside Ext. A1 bill issued to complainant with direction to pay Rs. 2500/- as compensation and cost of Rs. 1,000/- to him.
2. Complainant had taken water connection for domestic purpose from the opposite parties. Though he had remitted water charges due without default he was issued Ext. A1 bill claiming an amount of Rs. 14,171/- without any basis by the opposite parties was his case, to quash that bill alleging deficiency of service. He also alleged that opposite parties have not provided water without interruption and have also committed default in taking meter reading regularly. Opposite parties filed their version disputing the case of complainant. They contended that complainant had remitted water charges only up to 12/2010. Ext. A1 bill was issued based on meter reading taken after installation of a new water meter on 23.03.2010. Water connection provided to the complainant had been disconnected on two occasions that is on 13.12.2010 and 12.12.2011 according to the opposite parties. They contend that a revised bill was issued to the complainant directing him to pay an amount of Rs. 5,043/- after verification of the records. Denying deficiency of service opposite parties contended that complainant is liable to pay the amount due as per the revised bill, that is a sum of Rs. 5,043/-.
3. Evidence in the case consisted of proof affidavit filed by complainant and also by the 2nd opposite party and also Exts. A1 to A12 produced by the complainant. Appreciating the materials produced, the Forum below, taking the view that opposite parties have not taken meter reading regularly and that there was no material on what basis Ext. A1 bill had been issued, passed the order quashing Ext. A1 bill with direction to opposite parties to pay compensation and cost to the complainant as indicated earlier.
4. Aggrieved by the Order opposite parties have preferred the above appeal. Notice given respondent/complainant has entered appearance in person.
5. We heard the counsel for the opposite parties/appellants, and also the respondent and perused the records.
6. After going through the records with reference to the submissions made by both sides, we notice that the Forum below has misdirected its enquiry and that has resulted in forming wrong conclusion. Even in the version opposite parties have conceded that Ext. A1 bill was revised later and the complainant was issued a fresh bill demanding a sum of Rs. 5,043/- towards charges for his water consumption. When that be so, without examining the records produced the Forum below could not have proceeded as if challenge over Ext. A1 bill continued to exist and it has to be quashed. The Forum below has formed a conclusion that opposite parties have not taken meter readings regularly. That conclusion according to the Forum arose from the available documents. We are at a loss to note how such a conclusion could have been formed from the available documents produced by complainant. Documents do not show whether meter reading have been taken or not, and when that be so, it was improper for the lower Forum to hold that there was no regular meter reading on the basis of available records. The Forum has also found fault with opposite parties for having not adduced evidence to show on what basis Ext. A1 bill had been issued. When Ext. A1 bill had been revised by a fresh bill demanding a lesser sum they could not have been found fault with for not producing documents to sustain Ext. A1 bill. Furthermore the initial burden to prove his case imputing deficiency in service by opposite parties rested with the complainant and in the present case when opposite parties have revised Ext. A1 bill non-production of materials by them to sustain that bill has no consequence.
7. We find that Ext. A4 ledger print showing the details of the monthly charges, amount due for water consumption of complainant etc. has much significance in deciding the disputed question presented in the case. Ext. A4 is issued by the opposite parties showing water charges and amount for the period from 13.12.2010 to 10/2014. The present complaint was filed on 20.01.2012 and the challenge therein was over the validity of Ext. A1 bill. That bill, admittedly, was later withdrawn by the opposite parties issuing a revised bill claiming a sum of Rs. 5,043/-. Examining Ext. A4 ledger print we find the amount due as arrears on 12/2010 from the complainant was Rs. 2,919/-. However, details given for collection of charges would show that under receipt No. 1070860 a sum of Rs. 2,919/- had been collected from the complainant. In this context we have also to take notice that on two occasions water connection provided to complainant had been disconnected, on 13.12.2010 and 12.12.2011. So when reconnection was given whatever arrears due, naturally, had been collected and realized from the complainant. Surprisingly, collection of Rs. 2,919/- is not reflected in the ledger print and what is seen is that in the month of 01/2011 monthly charges are added to Rs. 2919/- as if such arrears remained and not cleared. Later, in the month for 12/2011 and 02/12 credits are given for amounts of Rs. 2,919/- and Rs. 7,026/- respectively on the arrears due, carried over from month to month, and, then, calculation is made as if a sum of Rs. 5,043/- still remained to be paid as arrears by the complainant. Procedure so followed by the opposite parties was only a book adjustment discarding the credit to be given for the arrears paid with reference to the month in which the two payments were made. The amount quoted as due after making the book adjustment of the two arrear clearance due do not reflect the actual amount due as arrears from the complainant. We have already pointed out when complainant paid Rs 2,919/- on 04.12.2010 whatever arrears due till that date had been cleared by him. He was thereafter liable to pay only monthly charges for the water consumed. Making some book adjustments, after a few months, giving credit to that payment made is not sufficient, and what was required was correct calculation of the amount due as charges. No data thereof is produced.
8. We find from Ext. A4 after the period from 2012 till 05.07.2013 complainant had paid only an amount of Rs. 315/-, and, no other payments have been made for water consumed from the connection provided to complainant. According to him since the dispute was pending consideration before the Forum charges were not collected by the opposite parties. In the present case we find that what is german for consideration is the charges due for the water consumed by complainant for the period from 12/2010 to 20.01.2012, the date on which the complaint was presented. Monthly charges during the period, according to the complainant, was Rs. 121/-. In the absence of any data produced by opposite parties, we are inclined to accept the submission made by the complainant that monthly charges for the above period was Rs. 121/-. Amount of Rs. 5,043/- claimed by the opposite parties making some book adjustments in the ledger is clearly unsustainable. The period from 12/10 to 15.01.2012 roughly covers 25 months and on calculation of the amount with reference to the monthly charges at the rate of Rs. 121/-, the sum would come to Rs. 3,025/-. We find the above sum is payable by the complainant for the period mentioned towards water consumed from his water connection and the claim of Rs. 5,043/- under the revised bill issued by the opposite parties is not allowable. Since there was mistake on the part of opposite parties in calculating the amount due as arrears no penalty can be imposed against the complainant and he is liable to pay only a sum of Rs. 3,025/- for the period from 12/10 to 20.01.2012. Complainant shall pay the above amount of Rs. 3,025/-within a period of one month.
9. So far as the amount due based on monthly charges fixed, for the period from 20.01.2012 onwards opposite parties shall issue a bill for such sum to the complainant without imposing any penalty within a period of two months. The rate at which the monthly charges is payable for the period would be based on the tariff fixed and applicable, and rules and regulation of the opposite parties. Complainant shall pay the amount due for the period mentioned above within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the bill from the opposite parties. Order of the lower Forum is modified as indicated above with direction to both parties to suffer their respective costs.
Appeal is partly allowed. Refund the amount deposited by the appellant for entertaining the appeal, on their application.
JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
