BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2008 Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER C.C No.76/2008 Between Complainant : George Thomas, Varickananickal House, Nedumkandam P.O, Idukki District. (By Adv:V.M.Joymon) And Opposite Party : The Asst.Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H Sub Division, Kattappana. (By Advs:G.Premnath& V.C.Sebastian) O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT The petition is filed for getting a direction from the opposite party for the reconnection of the service water connection of the complainant's residence.
The complainant is having a service water connection from the opposite party as Consumer No.54/NDKM in the year 1995 for his residential purpose. The complainant was paying Rs.17/- as monthly rent for the same. Upto 2004, the complainant paid the water connection bills promptly but after 2004 March, the complainant never obtained water from the opposite party. On enquiry it was revealed that the pipe connection to the complainant's residence was disconnected due to the widening of the road and the opposite party assured the complainant that the connection would be reconnected soon. A written complaint was given to the opposite party for the same on 17.01.2006. But there was no response from the opposite party. So the complainant constrained to construct a bore well for the purpose of drinking water. The complainant never paid the bills from the opposite party during the period 2006-2007 because the connection was disconnected. The water connection to the complainant's residence was not re-connected by the opposite party and so the complainant filed an application before the opposite party under the Right to Information Act. A reply was issued from the opposite party stating that the application sent by the complainant was not seen in the file and also replied by the opposite party that the connection was disconnected due to the non-payment of the water bills. The complainant is never entitled to pay the water bills issued by the opposite party for the period of disconnection of the water connection of the complainant's residence. So the complaint is filed for a direction to get the water connection to the complainant's residence to be re-connected and also for cancelling the bills issued in the period of disconnection.
2. The opposite party filed a written version and admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party as Consumer No.54/NDKM. The complainant paid the water charges upto November 2003 and the entire bills after November 2003 is pending. So the opposite party several times gave notice to the complainant for payment. The service connection of the complainant was disconnected on 2/2004 because of the work in the PWD road by KSTP and it was re-instated by the opposite party afterwards. The complainant filed a petition before the opposite party only in January 2006 stating that he was not obtaining water and it is only for avoiding the payment of dues of the water charges. On 21.05.2006, an Adalath was conducted by the opposite party for considering the complaint of the consumers in the Idukki District. Intimation was given to the complainant about the Adalath, but he never turned up. In July 2006 a notice was given to the complainant that the meter fitted in the premises of the complainant was defective and it is to be refitted, but the complainant never take any action for fitting a new meter in his residence water connection. An advance notice was given to the complainant about the disconnection of his residence water connection because of the non-payment of the water bills. The office staff of the opposite party duly taken meter readings in 12/2003, 10/2004 and 1/2006. The complainant is liable to pay the water charges from 2003 December to 2007 June and it is Rs.5,111/-. The opposite party is entitled to get the interest of the same @ 24%. So there is no deficiency in the part of the opposite party. 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R4 marked on the side of the opposite party.
5. The POINT :- Complainant is a consumer of the opposite party as Consumer No.54/NDKM for his residential water connection. The monthly minimum charge for the same was Rs.17/-, and the amount for the consumed water were promptly paid by the complainant. The provisional invoice card of the complainant is Ext.P1. But a bill for Rs.5,111/- was given to the complainant by the opposite party on 13.08.2007 for the dues of water charges upto 11/06. The complainant was examined as PW1. As per the deposition of PW1, he is not legally bound to pay the same. In March 2004, the service water connection of the complainant was disconnected due to the work in the PWD road. Several times the complainant approached the opposite party for the reconnection and the repair of service water connection. Written application was also given. But no reply was given from the opposite party. After that the complainant filed a petition under Right to Information Act for the same. The reply issued for the same was that the application given by the complainant was misplaced from the opposite party. The reply given by the opposite party was marked as Ext.P2. The opposite party was examined as DW1, who is the Assistant Executive Engineer of the opposite party. As per DW1, the opposite party issued a notice to the complainant for demanding an amount of Rs.5,111/- as the dues of water bill which is Ext.R4. The complainant's residence is situated below the road level. So whenever there is water in the pipeline, the complainant will get the same. DW1 has taken the charge only on 6.06.2008. But he is aware that the pipeline was broken due to the widening of the road in 2004. The opposite party has issued notice to the complainant to change the meter because the meter was faulty. The copy of the notice is marked as Ext.R2. But as per the cross examination, the complainant denied Ext.R2, he did not receive such a notice. There is no evidence produced by the opposite party to prove that the complainant received Ext.R2 notice. Ext.P3 disconnection letter, was issued on 16.07.2007. And as per Ext.R1(a), the consumer personal ledger from the opposite party, it is written that the connection disconnected on 16.07.2007. As per the complainant, he filed an application for disconnection to the opposite party on 17.01.2006. But no disconnection fee was paid. It is admitted by the opposite party that, the complainant's water connection was obstructed in the year 2004, because of the work in PWD road. As per the complainant the connection was not re-instated after that. So he made several complaints before the opposite party for the same. But the complaint itself was lost from the opposite party, as per Ext.P2, the report given to the complainant as per Right to Information Act. The complainant then digged a tube well for the consumption of water. Thus he suffered an amount of Rs.20,000/-. It is also admitted by the opposite party that the meter reading was not taken within 3 months as per the existing laws of Water Authority because of the scarcity of staff. So there is no evidence to prove that when water connection of the complainant was reconnected after the obstruction due to the widening of the road. It leads to a conclusion to believe the words of the complainant. It is the duty of the opposite party to reconnect the destroyed water connection of the complainant after the work of the road. The meter reading was also not taken regularly. So it is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party to issue a bill, without reliving the actual reading of the meter or even without aware whether the connection exists. So we think it is fit to cancel the bill issued by the opposite party and issue fresh bill after calculating the correct consumption. And also truly investigate when the water connection was repaired after the work of the road.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to cancel the Ext.P4 bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 16.07.2007 for Rs.5,111/-. The opposite party can issue fresh bill after calculating the correct consumption of water by the complainant in the period when the connection was not disconnected or destroyed due to work of the road. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.2,000/- from the opposite party as the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 23rd day of December, 2008 Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX Depositions On the side of Complainant : PW1 - George Thomas On the side of Opposite Party : DW1 - P.V.Stephen
Exhibits On the side of Complainant : Ext.P1 - Provisional Invoice Card Ext.P2 - Letter No.AB 3476/07 dated 30.04.2008 issued by the opposite party under the Right to Information Act Ext.P3 - Disconnection Advice issued by the Kerala Water Authority Ext.P4 - Bill dated 16.07.2007 for Rs.5,111/- issued by the opposite party On the side of Opposite party : Ext.R1(series) - True copy of Consumer Personal Ledger of the complainant Ext.R2 - Office copy of Notice dated 20.01.2004 Ext.R3 - Office copy of Notice dated 24.04.2006 Ext.R4 - True copy of Bill dated 16.07.2007 for Rs.5,111/-
| 
