DATE OF FILING : 21.3.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.75/2011
Between
Complainant : P.T. Thomas,
Puthenpurayil House,
Karimkunnam P.O.,
Thodupuzha, Idukki District.
(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Assistant Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
PH Sub Division, Thodupuzha,
Thodupuzha P.O.,
Idukki District.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
PH Sub Division, Thodupuzha,
Thodupuzha P.O.,
Idukki District.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
PH Sub Division, Thodupuzha,
Thodupuzha P.O.,
Idukki District.
(All by Adv: G. Premnath)
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
The father of the complainant availed a residential water connection as consumer No.215 KKM from 1993 onwards. The father of the complainant expired in the year 1997 and so the connection was continuing by the complainant. The complainant was promptly paying the bills upto August, 2009. But on 9.3.2010, the water connection meter of the complainant has been destroyed due to a vehicle. After that the pipe of the same has been sealed. So the complainant was not able to use the water through their connection. The complainant filed an application for changing the meter, on 14.3.2010 to the opposite party. while he approached for the same, the
(cont.....2)
- 2 -
opposite party instructed the complainant to pay the water charge from 8/2009 and demanded an amount of Rs.30,772/-. The complainant was not able to use the water after the destruction of the meter. The complainant has a well in his house and it is having water and in the summer season only so that the complainant is using the pipe water from the opposite party. But the opposite parties were supplying water only once in 3 days in the summer season. So the complainant constrained to construct another well in his property and the water is pumping from there by using motor. So there is no excess use of water by the complainant. The opposite parties are not checking the meter reading promptly and the complainant never consumed such a quantity of water to issue such a hike bill. So that the complainant requested for getting a detailed bill for the amount demanded by the opposite party, but it was denied by them. It is only written that, “3/09 to 1/11 water charge + additional amount” and the amount Rs.30,772/- in the bill issued by them. Several times the complainant requested for changing the meter, but it was not done by the opposite party. So that the complainant is not able to use the water for the last 10 months. So this petition is filed for cancelling the excess bill issued by them and also for changing the defective meter of the complainant's premises.
2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party and the consumer No.215KKM is belongs to one Mr.Mathew Thomas, Puthenpurayil. The opposite party is not aware whether he had expired. The water charge upto 2/2009 has been paid as per the records of the opposite party. The allegation of the complainant that the meter has been destroyed due to a vehicle on 9.3.2010 is not correct and the complainant never approached the opposite party for changing the meter. The opposite party has been issued notice for the dues of water charge, but the complainant never informed about the destruction of the meter. The meter was situated adjacent to a boundary wall and it will not get destruction due to any of the vehicle. The opposite parties are not aware of the well constructed by the complainant and using water from there. The opposite parties are taking meter reading promptly at the time the meter was there and bills were issuing promptly as per the consumption. The meter situated in the premises of the complainant has been destroyed by the complainant and while the opposite party inspected the premises, it was noticed and directed the complainant to change the meter and the bill has been issued as per the consumption. The complainant never informed the destruction of the meter to the police or the concerned authorities and using the water without meter is a criminal offence and the opposite party is ready to prosecute the complainant against that. So the petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
(cont....3)
- 3 -
4. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 & P2 marked on the side of the complainant and oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1(series) & R2 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The POINT :- The complainant produced evidence as PW1 and produced copy of the provisional invoice card issued by the opposite party for the consumption of water is marked as Ext.P1. PW1 is using the residential water connection as consumer No.215KKM which was issued in the name of the father of the complainant who expired in the year 1997. The complainant is paying the bill regularly but the meter was destroyed due to a vehicle and that matter was informed to the opposite party. While the complainant approached the opposite party, they issued a bill for an amount of Rs.30,772/- which the complainant was not entitled to pay. The complainant had promptly paid the bills upto August 2009 and the meter was destroyed on 9.3.2010. The additional bill issued by the opposite party is marked as Ext.P2. A complaint was given to the opposite party on 14.3.2010 for changing the meter and that matter was not informed to the police. The complainant was not aware that the matter was to be informed to the police and so that it was not done. The opposite party issued a bill for Rs.52/- in the months from 10.7.2007 to 8/2008 and Rs.92/- in the months from 9/2008 to 2/2009, but the complainant was entitled to pay Rs.1517/- in the month of 9/2008. But the learned counsel for the opposite party cross examined the complainant and suggested that the complainant has to pay Rs.513/- in the month of 8/2008, but the complainant paid only Rs.52/- and from 10/2007 to 8/2008 the complainant has to pay Rs.5071/-. From 9/2008 to 2/2009 the complainant has to pay Rs.1517/-, but the complainant has paid only Rs.92/- as per the opposite party. It is also cross examined by the learned cousel for the opposite party that the complainant has to pay Rs.6036/- from 9/2009 to 9/2010. So a total amount of Rs.32,665/- was to be paid by the complainant. The opposite party produced evidence as DW1 and produced photographs of the water meter including the pipe and is marked as Ext.R1(series). On cross examination of the learned counsel for the complainant, DW1 who is the Assistant Executive Engineer of the opposite party deposed that the water charge bill are issued as per the meter reading and the complainant paid the water charge upto 2/2009 and the complete ledger is not produced by the opposite party. Only the ledger copy of the disputed period has been produced. 5 times the meter reading has been taken after fitting the meter. But the reading from 1993 has not been produced. No application has been given by the complainant on 14.3.2010 for changing the meter. It is also deposed by the DW1 that eventhough the complainant paid the bill, the complete bill has not paid. For the specific question of the learned counsel for the complainant that "which is the bill that the complainant partially paid", there is no answer from the part of the DW1. The additional bill was issued on 10/2007 and DW1 also answered whether the matter of additional bill was told to the complainant in the month of 2/2009, DW1
(cont....4)
- 4 -
deposed that after that the additional bill was issued. But she also deposed that the documents will not show that there is a due from 2007. There is no detail of the consumption written in Ext.P2 bill.
So as per the deposition of DW1, they are not aware of the details of bill issued by the opposite party, which is Ext.P2. The details of the consumption of the complainant's water connection, detail of the bill paid by the complainant, detail of the bill issued to the complainant are not at all aware of DW1 and the ledger produced by DW1 for the consumption of the complainant is not at all complete. As per the written version, it is written that the complainant paid the bill upto 2/2009 and it is recorded in the documents of the opposite party. While cross examination of the learned counsel for the complainant, DW1 answered that the bill was not completely paid by the complainant on 2/2009. But when the learned counsel for the complainant specifically asked about the bill which the complainant partially paid, there was no answer for DW1 for the same. Ext.P2 is a small piece of paper in which it is written that 215KKM, the consumer number of the complainant, w/c + Adl 3/09 to 1/11 = 30772/- and nothing other than written in the Ext.P2. So we think that it is a bill issued by the opposite party, which is a piece of paper, which is having some amount written by the opposite party for a period and there is no seal or signature of the opposite party, which is written by a ball point pen. There is no name of the opposite party or never proves that it is issued from the oppostie party water authority. So the opposite party never produced the copy of the exact bill issued by the opposite party specified in Ext.P2. So Ext.P2 is not at all reliable bill which is issued by the opposite party for such a bulk amount such as Rs.30,772/-. While the complainant requested for the detail of the bill, that is also not issued by the opposite party. There is no exact calculation of the bill done in the ledger copy produced by the opposite party which is Ext.R2. There is no mention of the huge amount which has been levied by the opposite party for the consumption of the complainant. There is no evidence produced by the opposite party to show that the partial payment was done by the complainant and some amount is due from the complainant in the month of 2/2009 and also the opposite party never produced any copy of the bill issued to the complainant for the due period as per the deposition of DW1. Some suggestion has been done by the learned counsel for the opposite party while cross examining the complainant that opposite party has issued a huge bill in certain months and the complainant paid only a small amount and that is why this bill has been issued. But the documents for the same has not been produced by the opposite party. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the opposite parties are not taken the meter reading even once in an year. The ledger produced by the opposite party also shows that they are not taking the meter reading in once in six months. So it is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party without taking the meter reading, they are issuing bills to the consumers and the calculation statement for the
(cont....5)
- 5 -
period in which they consumed is not issuing to the consumers. So the opposite party should issue the bill after calculating the correct meter reading of the consumption of the consumers.
The other contention of the complainant is that the meter has been destroyed by a vehicle. A petition has been filed by the complainant to appoint a Commissioner for inspecting whether the meter has been destroyed due to a vehicle. An Advocate Commissioner was apppointed and as per the Commission Report, it is stated that there is a tarred road constructed by the complainant to his residence from the public road for about 25 metres length and 8 feets width. In both of its sides, "iruva kayyalas" are constructed for about 3 feets height and G.I. Pipe has been fitted under the road to the gate of the complainant's residence. The pipe has been fitted adjecent to the "kayyala" and the G.I. Pipe has been fitted in the place where the meter was fitted. The pipe has been extended to the water tank fitted in the property of the complainant which is used for fish tank. It is also stated in the 2nd page of the Commission Report that the water meter was fitted in the extreme portion of the boundary wall and the tarred road which is having same height and so there is no chance for destruction of the meter by a vehicle through that road. So we think that as per the Commission Report, there is no chance for destruction of the meter due to a vehicle. Moreover, the meter has been fitted in the extreme side of the road and nearest to the wall which is of a private road situtated in the property of the complainant. It is the duty of the complainant to care about the meter fitted by the opposite party in the property of the complainant. Ext.R1(series) photographs produced by the opposite party also shows that the meter has been fitted in the nearest portion of the boundary wall and there is no chance of destruction by a vehicle. There is no copy of the police complaint or any other copy of the complaint given to the opposite party produced by the complainant to show about the destruction of the meter and for the change of the meter. So the contention of the complainant that the meter has been destroyed due to a vehicle is not at all sustainable.
It is also stated in the Commission Report that the water is using by the complainant for the fish tank and it is also admitted by the complainant. So even there is an availability of well, the complainant may have used the water for the agricultural purposes and for pisciculture. So the water has been used by the complainant for that period.
The opposite party never produced the exact calculation of the consumption of the water used by the complainant and the bill issued by the opposite party is not at all shows that it is issued as additional for such a period and it is issued for the consumption for a particular period. It means that the opposite party has not made an enquiry about the destruction of the meter or the consumption of water by the
(cont....6)
- 6 -
complainant. They issued a bill without any basis. DW1 is not at all aware about the exact calculation of the bill. Hence the opposite party should issue the corrected bill after calculating the true and correct consumption of the complainant according to the meter reading.
Hence the petition partially allowed. The opposite parties are directed to cancel the Ext.P2 bill issued to the complainant for an amount of Rs.30,772/-. The opposite party can issue the accurate bill or invoice, for the consumption of water, after true and correct calculation of the additional consumption of water by the complainant and also for the period in which the meter was not working at the complainant's premises, after giving details of calculation statement to the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of November, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - P.T. Thomas
On the side of the Opposite parties :
DW1 - Sheela P.K.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Copy of the provisional invoice card issued by the opposite party.
Ext.P2 - The additional bill issued by the opposite party.
On the side of the Opposite parties :
Ext.R1(series) - The photographs of the water meter of the complainant.
Ext.R2 - Copy of the consumer personal ledger.
