IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of September, 2011
Filed on 20.08.2010
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.191/10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Part ies:-
Sri. D.Chandran 1. Kerala Water Authority
Manappallysserril Represented by its Secretary
Thondankulangara Ward Jala Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram Alappuzha
(By Adv. Kunnumpurath Ranjeet Sreenivas) 2. The Asst. Executive Engineer
Assistant Executive Engineer’s
Office, Public Health Sub Division
Kerala Water Authority, Alappuzha
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case succinctly is as follows:- The complainant is a teacher by calling. He is the consumer of the opposite parties bearing Consumer No.AWN2328/P. The complainant has been unfailingly paying the water charges till 11th December, 2009. The water charges never fell in arrears during this period. Strangely still, the opposite party issued to the complainant a demand notice dated 2nd July, 2010 calling him upon to pay off Rs.32,701/- towards arrears of water charges. The demand notice is without any bonafides. The complainant has paid off the water charges fully till 11th December, 2009. The opposite parties’ service is unfair. The complainant sustained incalculable mental agony and harassment. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On notice being served the opposite parties turned up and filed joint version. The crux of the opposite parties' contentions is that the complainant has consumed excessive water, and the bill issued was for the same. According to the opposite parties, the complainant's meter was examined on 6th March 2007 and found that 1KL water was used. Again, the meter was checked on 5th December 2009, and 62.5 KL water was seen to have been used. The additional charge for the said consumption ran to Rs.15,784/-. The complainant’s meter was over again examined on 16th March to find the water reading as 65.4KL. On 26th July 2010 when the meter was yet again inspected the consumption reading was 11KL. All these carried additional charges, and when computed together the amount arrived on was Rs.18,133/-. The amount projected in the demand notice dated 2nd July 2010 was incorporated misguidedly on taking meter reading as 2666 in lieu of 2066, the opposite parties submit. The complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.18,510/- up to August and thence Rs.48/- regularly. The attempt of the complainant is to evade the said payment. The complaint is only to be dismissed, the opposite parties forcefully argue.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1, and the documents Exts. Al to A3 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, the Asst. Engineer was examined as RW1, and the documents Exbt B1 was marked.
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the issues that crop up for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the complainant has used additional water?
(b) Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount demanded in Ext. A1 bill?
(c) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. The complainant's specific case is that the complainant has cleared off the water charges till 11th December 2009. According to the complainant, no arrears left to have been paid. Yet, the opposite parties demanded Rs.32,70l/- from the complainant towards arrears of water charge. Keeping in view the complainant's contention, we anxiously went through the contentions advanced by the opposite parties. On a closer scrutiny of the opposite parties version, it is revealed that the contentions of the opposite parties are vague, indefinite and incomprehensive. The opposite parties are stated to have visited the complainant premises on diverse occasions for taking meter reading viz; on 6th March 2007, 5th December 2009, and 26th July 2010 etc. Strangely still, for unknown reasons, the opposite parties didn't issue any bill to the complainant on all these instances. It is crucial to notice that the opposite parties have produced no material to substantiate or the least to say, to support its contentions. Strangely yet, the opposite parties version as to the amount estimated in Ext. Al bill. The opposite parties have no qualms to now contend that the amount was miscalculated by an oversight. Thus, it appears that according to the opposite parties themselves the complainant is not liable to payoff the Ext. Al bill amount of Rs.32,70l/-. As a replacement for same, the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.18,510/- the opposite parties contend. Interestingly, the opposite parties contentions as to the manner in which the said amount is arrived also sound incoherent. We need hardly say that the Ext. Al bill concededly stands annulled. We have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to relief.
6. For the forgoing facts and findings herein above, we hold that the Ext. Al bill dated 2nd July, 2010 calling him upon the complainant to payoff Rs.32,701/- (Rupees thirty two thousand seven hundred and one only )to the opposite parties stands cancelled. Thereafter, the opposite parties shall issue bills regularizing the charges to Rs.48/- (Rupees forty eight only) per month and arrears if any in line with the said tariff, the opposite parties shall entitle to recover the same from the complainant.
The complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to compensation and cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K.Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - D.Chandran (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Notice
Ext.A2 - Receipt dtd. 11.12.2009
Ext.A3 - Receipt dtd. 27.2.07
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Mary Gracy T.X. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Consumer Ledger of Kerala Water Authority
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-pr/-
Compared by:-
