Complaint filed on: 20-12-2011
Disposed on: 21-06-2012
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.2320/2011
DATED THIS THE 21st JUNE 2012
PRESENT
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER
Complainant: -
D.S.Rachappa,
# 19, 2nd Main,
Siddivinayaka Layout,
C-Block, Virupakshapura,
Kodigehalli,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bangalore - 97
V/s
Opposite party: -
The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Bangalore Water Supply and
Sewerage Board, No.3,
Sub Division, Hebbal,
Bangalore
ORDER
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OP, praying to pass an order, directing the OP to refund the excess amount of Rs.6,657=00 to him alongwith cost.
2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.
The complainant was living at No.86, 3rd Main, 5th Cross, BDA HIG Layout, Bangalore-94, and his normal consumption of water supplied by the OP was only about 8000 to 12000 liters per month, and the bill was about Rs.119=00 per month. During August 2010 and Sept.2010, the meter showed consumption of 97000 liters and 138000 liters, and the bill amounts were Rs.2,562=00 and Rs.4,333=00 respectively, which was excessive and abnormal. The complainant paid these bills by way of cheques on 14-9-2010 and 8-10-2010. The owner of the house has requested OP in his letter dated 12-11-2011 to replace the meter which was defective and to refund the excess amount paid and there has been no response, despite issuance of reminders dated 20-12-2011 and 20-10-2011. In the meantime, the complainant left the house and as there was no one living. So, he got a lock fixed to the pipe at the inflow side of the meter to stop the flow of water. There was no response even to the complainant application dated 9-2-2011 under the RTI Act-2005. So, The complainant has filed this complaint requesting to pass an order, directing the OP to refund the excess amount of Rs.6,657=00 paid by him with interest and cost.
3. After service of notice, the OP has appeared through his counsel and filed his objection, contending inter-alia as under:
The complainant or the care take of the said property is seeking refund of excess bill amount from the OP. The contention of the complainant that, the OP is a statutory authority for the purpose of supplying or providing water, the office of the OP has maintained a separate register to record the application received under RTI Act, and an inward register is maintained for recording every day’s receivable letters to the office including from the public. However, on verification of both registers, the said complaints or letters by the complainant are not delivered to the office of the OP. Since no letters have been received from the complainant, the contention of taking no action or not responding does not arise, so, the complaint liable is to be dismissed. The OP after receiving a copy of the complaint no.2320/2011 visited and inspected the said premises of the said RR No. and on inspection found that the water meter in respect of the above RR No. is not defective. The said premise has been occupied by another tenant who is regularly paying the water charges according to the bill. The OP denies the averments made in para no.5 of the complaint, it is clear from the registers maintained by the OP at the inward sections that no letters have been delivered from the owner of the premises. Hence, the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The complainant has not approached the forum with clean hands and has suppressed the facts, the water meter was found with no defect, the complaint has no truth in it and it is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the complainant has never made any efforts to approach the OP nor has made any complaint before approaching this forum. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost in the interest of justice and equity.
4. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the OP, the following points arise for our consideration.
1. Whether the complainant proves that, there was a defect in the water meter fixed to the house bearing No.86, 3rd Main, 5th Cross, BDA HIG Layout, Bangalore-94, and it showed the excess reading, and he is entitled for refund of amount as prayed in the complaint?
2. If point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the Negative
Point no.2: In view of the negative findings on the
point no.1, the complainant is not entitled
to any relief as prayed in the complaint
Point no.3: For the following order
REASONS
6. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence, and produced two original water bills for the month of August 2010 and Sept.2010, and two receipts for having paid Rs.2,562=00 and Rs.4,333=00 towards the consumption of water charges, and the copies of water bills and receipts from 16-6-2009 to Oct.2010 in respect of RR No.3871/10-92, and one copy of letter dated 12-11-2010 issued by K.Sreenath to BWSSB, and Form no.A under the RTI Act-2005, Check list, and one letter dated 20-10-2011 issued by the complainant to BWSSB. On the other hand, one Rajashekarappa.G, working in BWSSB has filed his affidavit and produced the Ledger report, extract of inward, and extract of RTI register.
7. D.S.Rachappa, who being the complainant has filed his affidavit stating that, he was leaving at No.86, 3rd Main, 5th Cross, BDA HIG Layout, Bangalore-94, and his normal consumption of water supplied by the OP was only about 8000 to 12000 liters per month, and the bill was about Rs.119=00 per month. During August 2010 and Sept.2010, the meter showed consumption of 97000 liters and 138000 liters having bill amounts of Rs.2,562=00 and Rs.4,333=00 respectively, which was excessive and abnormal, and he has paid these bills by way of cheques on 14-9-2010 and 8-10-2010. The owner of the house has requested the OP to replace the meter, which was defective and to refund the amount paid, and there is no response, despite issuing the reminders dated 20-12-2011 and 20-10-2011. In the meantime, he left the house, and he got a lock fixed to the pipe at the inflow side of the meter to stop the flow of water. There was no response even to the complainant’s application dated 9-2-2011 under the RTI Act-2005. So, he filed the complaint praying to pass an order, directing the OP to refund the amount of Rs.6,657=00 with interest and cost.
8. As can be seen from the averments of the complaint and evidence of the complainant as mentioned above, it is no doubt true that, the complainant has tendered his evidence in accordance with the averments of the complaint. But, it is required to be noted from the complaint and evidence of the complainant that, the complainant has not made clear, in what capacity i.e. as owner or tenant or caretaker, he was residing in the house bearing No.86, 3rd Main, 5th Cross, BDA HIG Layout, Bangalore-94. The complaint and evidence of the complainant are ambiguous on this aspect for the reasons best known to the complainant. The evidence of the complainant goes to revel that to the house bearing No.86, 3rd Main, 5th Cross, BDA HIG Layout, Bangalore-94 separate owner is there, but the name of the owner of the said house is not disclosed even in the complaint or in the evidence of the complainant. Let us have a look at the relevant documents of the complainant, Two original water bills for the month of August 2010 and Sept. 2010 are produced alongwith receipts, and these bills were issued in the name of K.Sreenath, and the amount of Rs.2,562=00 and Rs.4,333=00 for consumption of water of 97000 and 138000 liter was there and these bills were paid duly as on 14-9-2010 and 8-10-2010. The owner of the house by name K.Sreenath has written a letter to the BWSSB on 12-11-2010 stating that, the water meter showed excess consumption for the month of Aug. 2010 and Sept.2010 i.e. 97000 and 138000 liters, and their normal consumption was only 8000 to 12000 liters pre month, the amount of Rs.119=00, and prayed to check and replace the meter and also refund the excess amount and so also the complainant wrote a letter to BWSSB on 20-10-2011 stating that, the owner of the house wrote a letter requesting to refund the excess amount collected, due to defect in the water meter, and no reply despite reminders. So he prayed to refund the excess amount collected, failing which, he will approach the district forum. In the letter written by the complainant as mentioned above, he has failed to explain in what capacity, he was residing in the house of the owner K.Sreenath. The letter of the complaint dated 20-10-2011 is silent totally on this material aspect. That apart no postal receipts or acknowledgement cards were produced by the complainant for having sent these letters to the OP. In the absence of producing any postal receipts or acknowledgement cards, it is superfluous to reiterate, on the basis of these two letters, that the owner K.Sreenath and the complainant have sent letters to the OP earlier to filing the present complaint. The complainant has produced copies of water bills and receipts for a period from June 2009 to Aug.2010, and these bills go to demonstrate that, the water bills of owner K.Sreenath ranging amount of Rs.83=00 to 155=00 per month. The OP has produced Ledger report showing the meter reading of water meter of owner K.Sreenath, and the said ledger report extract copy, makes it clear that for the month of Feb.2010 and Jan.2010 and from August to December 2009 amounts of bills for these months were Rs.4,765=00, Rs.3,652=00, Rs.3,238=00, Rs.4,290=00, Rs.3,944=00, Rs.2,595=00 and Rs.1,989=00 and these amounts were duly paid by the owner K.Sreenath, without raising any objection, so also for the month of April 2010 an amount of Rs.2,490=00 came and October 2010 and Sept.2010, the bill amount was Rs.4,333=00 and Rs.2,562=00 and these amounts were paid by the complainant and owner without raising any little finger. The extract of inward register produced by the OP discloses that, the names of either owner or complainant are not found in the inward register for having received the letters of owner and complainant by BWSSB. Likewise, the extract of RTI register produced by the OP goes to show that the names of either complainant or owner are not found fingered to show that they applied for information under the RTI Act. The contention of the OP taken both in the version and evidence of the officer of the OP that, no letters were issued either by owner or by complainant before filing the complaint is corroborated by copies of extract of inward and extract of RTI register produced by the OP. We have stated in our earlier discussion that, the complainant has produced the copies of letters issued by himself and owner of the house to BWSSB dated 20-10-2011 and 12-11-2010. But no postal receipts or acknowledge cards were produced by the complainant for having served these letters on the OP. Having not produced any believable documentary evidence by complainant, it can not be held on the basis of copies of two letters dated 20-10-2011 and 12-11-2010 produced by the complainant that these letters were duly served on the OP. Besides before filing the present complaint, the complainant ought to have made correspondence with the OP calling upon to return the excess amount paid by the owner of the house. No letter or notices were issued to the OP before filing the present complaint to prove the cause of action to file the present complaint. Unless and until, the OP repudiates the claim of the complainant, the present complaint is not sustainable. More so, the complainant has not satisfied the forum with clinching evidence that, in what capacity, he filed the present complaint, as the complainant is neither owner nor tenant of the house. The water bills produced by the complainant are standing in the name of one K.Sreenath who is owner of the house, and not in the name of the complainant, and receipts of the water bills were also issued in the name of owner of house. The copy of bank statement of the complainant showed that, the complainant paid the water bills for the month of August and Sept.2010 in the name of the complainant. So, under the circumstance, the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as provided by 2 (1) (d) of the CP Act. Since, the complainant is neither the owner nor the tenant; he cannot maintain the present complaint. So, viewing the case of the complainant, on the back ground of oral and documentary evidence of the parties, we are of the considered opinion that, the complainant has not approached the forum with clean hands. So, we hold that, the complainant has failed to prove this point satisfactorily by placing clear cogent and consistent documentary evidence, and according, we answer this point in a negative.
9. In view of the negative findings on the point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint. So, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the forgoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed, as not maintainable. So, under the circumstance, both parties shall bear their own cost.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this the 21st day of June 2012.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
