DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 31st day of January 2011
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 30/06/2001
(C.C.No. 204/2001)
K.H.Khadeeja
W/o.Kassim
Mukkattil House
Thottakara,
Ottapalam - Complainant
V/s
1.Asst.Executive Engineer
Kerala Water Authority
P.H.Sub Division, Ottapalam
2.Govt.of Kerala
(Rep.by Secretary
Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram) - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt. SEENA H, PRESIDENT
Brief case of the complainant
Complainant is running a hotel for earning her livelihood. Complainant has availed a non domestic connection from 1st opposite party vide consumer No.1504 in the year 1995. Complainant has regularly paid the bills issued by 1st opposite party. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.13,000/ for the bill dated 23/5/2000 issued by 1st opposite party. The grievance of the complainant is that after the payment of the above stated bill, 1st opposite party has not taken any meter reading or issued any water bill. There after on 23/5/2001 without any prior notice 1st opposite party disconnected the water supply. Complainant has not received any bill or notice prior to disconnection. Due to the act of opposite parties complainant has compelled to shut down the hotel. Complainant was always ready for payment of the amount. But 1st opposite party was not ready to issue the bill. Due to the act of the opposite parties, Complainant has incurred a loss of Rs.25,000/ due to the closure of the hotel. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to restore the connection and also pay compensation for the loss incurred.
The contention of the opposite party's is as follows:
Complainant is holding a non domestic water connection for running hotel business. Since the connection is for commercial purpose, complainant is not a consumer within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.
According to opposite parties complainant is liable to pay the following amount towards water charges.
Period | Amount Due | Consumption |
|---|
Upto 5/96 | 6408 |
|
|---|
6/96 to 5/97 (12 months @327 per month) | 3924 | 64 KL |
6/97 to 4/98 (11 months @534 per month) | 5874 | 94KL |
1999 April onwards revised rate |
4/99 to 3/2000 (12 months @836 per month) | 10032 | 94 KL |
Apart from the said due amount, complainant is liable to pay Rs.116/ towards service charge, Rs.8753 towards fine and Rs.19 towards notice charge. Altogether complainant is liable to pay Rs.41.000/ out of which complainant paid Rs.16,000/ so the balance amount due is Rs.25,000/-
Further complainant's meter turn out to be faulty during the period 5/98 and hence complainant is liable to pay double of the actual amount payable. Further for the period 4/2000 to 5/2001 amount due is Rs.23408/ and fine amount come to Rs.9581/-. So the total amount payable including reconnection charge is Rs.60,119/-.
Opposite party deny the allegation of the complainant that opposite party has disconnected the connection without any notice and no bill was issued to the complainant. According to 1st opposite party there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
The evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective affidavit and Ext.B1 and B2 marked on the side of the opposite party.
Now the issues that arises for our consideration is that
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
If so, what is the relief and costs complainant is entitled ?
Issue 1 & 2
The definite case of the complainant is that complainant was very regular in payment of bills issued by opposite party. Complainant has paid Rs.13,000/ towards the bill dated 23/5/2000. There after opposite party has not taken any meter reading or issued any bill. Water supply was disconnected on 23/5/2001 without any prior notice. Complainant was always ready to pay the bill amount, but could not pay the same for want of bill. Complainant was forced to shut down the hotel and thereby suffered loss.
Opposite parties on the other hand contented that a total amount of Rs.60,119/ being the dues, penal charges etc. is payable by complainant. The details of the due amount as submitted by opposite parties is as follows:
upto 5/96 - Rs.6408
6/96 to 5/97 - Rs.3924
6/97 to 4/98 - Rs.5874
5/98 period meter faulty
1999 onwards revised rate
4/99 to 3/2000 - Rs.10,032
The total amount due for the above period including fine of Rs.8753/ service charge of Rs.116/ and notice charges of Rs.19 is Rs.41,000/ Complainant paid Rs.16,000/ so balance is Rs.25,000/
4/2000 to 5/2001 - Rs.23,408 + fine Rs.9581.
Hence total amount including reconnection charges Rs.60,119/-
The sum of the contention of opposite parties we understand that upto the period 3/2000, the amount payable by the complainant is Rs.41,000/ out of which complainant has paid Rs.16,000/ so the balance amount payable is Rs.25000/ Further dues for the period 4/2000 to 5/2001 including fine and earlier dues of Rs.25,000/ amounts to Rs.60,119/
The averment of complainant is that he was always ready and willing to pay the bill amount, but he was not served with a bill. Without proper notice opposite party has disconnected the water supply. Admittedly meter is faulty after 5/98 and further there is no evidence on record to show that opposite party has instructed complainant to take steps for clearing defects in the meter. There is no evidence to show that meter reading was taken after the year 2000. In the year 2007, during the pendency of the case before the forum complainant has filed an application to direct the opposite party to change the faulty meter. IA was allowed and was directed to change the faulty meter within a period of 2 weeks. It is noted that no counter in the the said application filed by opposite parties. So, it can very well be presumed that the meter was faulty even in the year 2007. If that be so, the next question is what is the basis adopted by the opposite parties in deriving the bill amount for the period 4/2000 to 5/2001 as Rs.23408/ and fine Rs.9581/. It is understood that double of the revised amount for the said period is claimed. i.e.@836*2
