BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 179/2000 Filed on 29/03/2000
Dated: 30..06..2009 Complainant: P.K. Divakaran, Bhadra Deepam, Kallampally, Medical College P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 011. Opposite parties:
The Asst. Executive Engineer, Water Authority Sub Division, North Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram. The Chief Engineer (Distribution), Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S. Bhanu Krishnakumar)
This O.P having been heard on 30..05..2009, the Forum on 30..06..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.UPW 1358, that the complainant's premise was supplied water through old pipe line taped by the pipeline to Kallampally – Valyunni Road, that the water tank in the complainant's premises is fitted on the roof of the building which is nearly 8 meters high and the pipe line is directly connected to the tank from the metering point and the distribution of water is arranged from the water tank, that unless there is high pressure in the pumping system the complainant will not get drinking water, that normally water supplied through the pipeline will flow to the lower level and hence the complainant is not supplied with water for the last ten years, that the water meter fitted in the complainant's premises is not working since 1990, and that the supplier is bound to maintain the meter in good working condition, without which he cannot assess the quantum of water consumed. Due to utter discrimination and harassment made by the opposite parties, the complainant forced to dig a well and installed a pump set to meet his requirements early in 1990, that the opposite parties issued a notice on 9/11/99 asking him to remit Rs.6,451/- for the period from 4/90 to 10/99 without showing any details, that on receipt of the said notice, the complainant sent petition to opposite parties requesting them to make an enquiry to the matter to cancel the notice dated 9/11/1999 and to exempt the complainant from the liability to pay the amount, but no action was taken by opposite parties. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to give drinking water to the complainant, to replace the existing faulty meter with a good working meter and to issue bill based on the correct water consumption, to exempt the complainant for the payment of water charges from 4/90 onwards, to cancel the illegal notice dated 9/11/99 and pay compensation and cost to the complainant.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the water supply connection to the complainant as well as residents of the area are from the PVC distribution main along Kallampally, that the supply to this area is in alternate days, that during the turn the consumers of this locality are getting water, and that during the site inspection on May and June of 2001, water was available at the taps even during day time. Most of the residents of this area were getting water during this turn, that the meter of this connection is not working since 1990. The responsibility for the safe custody and sound condition of the meter vests with the consumers and consumer has to replace the faulty meter with a new one. There is no discrimination on the part of opposite parties, the complainant is a regular defaulter of water charges for the last 10 years. He had made no remittance since 3/1990. Hence opposite parties served a cut off notice. The consumption is assessed as per Rule 17(d), that the request for cancelling the notice is against rules. The reliefs claimed are not at all maintainable. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get notice dated 9/11/1999 and other subsequent bills cancelled? Whether the opposite party is liable to replace the faulty meter with a new working meter? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to any other reliefs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and Exts.P1 to P14 were marked. One witness as PW2 has been examined and cross examined by opposite parties. In rebuttal, the 1st opposite party has filed a counter affidavit and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked. 5. Points (i) to (iv) : It is the case of the complainant that water to the complainant's premises was supplied through old pipeline, that the water tank in the premises is fitted on the roof of the building, that normally water supplied through the pipeline will flow to the lower level and hence complainant was not supplied with water from 1990 onwards, that water meter fitted in the premises is not working since 1990, and that a notice dated 9/11/1999 was served by opposite parties to the complainant for Rs.6,451/-. Ext.P4 is the copy of notice dated 9/11/1999 for Rs.6,451/- addressed to the complainant. A perusal of Ext.P4 reveals that the said amount of Rs. 6,451/- is towards water charges from 4/90 to 10/99. It is admitted by opposite parties in the version that the said area is comparatively an elevated area and water will not be always entering into the OH tank constructed at the roof of the 1st floor during day time, that most of the consumers of this locality are collecting water on the ground level tank and pumping to the over head tanks. Further, opposite parties submit that the supply to this area is in alternate days. During the turn the consumers of this locality were also getting water. Opposite parties also admit that the water meter of this connection is not working since 1990. Submission by the opposite parties is that as per provision of the Water Supply Regulation. When a meter goes out of order, the same shall be got replaced or repaired by the consumer at the cost of the consumer. In this case no step was seen taken by the consumer to replace the faulty meter with a new one. PW2, in his examination in chief, has deposed that, complainant has dug well due to the non-availability of pipe water. In his cross examination, PW2 denied the suggestion put by opposite parties that water supply was available in alternate days. PW2 has deposed further that water supply was not available since 1991. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that, no adjustment bill was seen furnished by opposite parties prior to Ext.P4 notice, nor did opposite parties have a case that they have issued any adjustment bill on the basis of actual meter reading. Both parties admit meter is not working, nor did complainant replace the old meter with new one. As per Ext.P4 provisional invoice card (copy) it is seen that “Rate revised from Rs.67/- to Rs. 23/- as per self declaration from 4/96 onwards”. There is no material on record to show that complainant has remitted any amount from 4/90 onwards. Ext.P4 notice was issued to the complainant on 9/11/1999. As per Ext.P4, complainant was directed to remit Rs.6,451/-. Along with Ext.P4, no bill was seen issued by opposite parties to substantiate the mode of calculation. If the complainant failed to remit the amount as per Ext.P4 Provisional Invoice Card, opposite parties would have taken action as per provisions of Water Supply Regulation. In this case no such action is seen taken by opposite parties, till 9/11/1999, to recover the water charges from the consumer. Revision of rate from Rs.67/- to Rs.23/- from 4/90 and non-initiation of action against the complainant for the last 9 years, together with the deposition of PW2 would justify the allegation in the complaint that the water supply was not readily available to the consumer concerned during the said period. In view of the above we find the complainant is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.6,451/- as per Ext.P4 notice dated 9/11/1999. After the issuance of Ext.P4 notice, opposite parties had served consumer bills dated 2/11/2005, 23rd May 2007, 23rd June 2007, 22nd April 2008, the copies of the said bills furnished by the complainant reveal that still the meter is not working. The faulty meter need be replaced with a new meter by the complainant. Ext.P14 is the Demand and Disconnection notice dated 23/12/2008. As per Ext.P14, the bill amount is Rs.18,003/- which would include the arrear amount upto 11/99. Taking into consideration of the totality of circumstance of the case, we find it will be expedient and justice will be well met if complainant is exonerated from the liability to pay water charge as per Ext.P4 notice dated 9/11/1999. Complainant ought to replace the faulty meter with a new meter at the cost of the consumer. On installation of the new meter opposite parties have to raise fresh bill on the basis of aveage meter reading for 3 months restrospectively for the whole period from 11/99 onwards.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Ext.P4 cut off notice dated 9/11/1999 and other subsequent bills issued by opposite parties are hereby cancelled. Complainant is exonerated from the liability to pay water charge as per Ext.P4 notice dated 9/11/99. Complainant shall replace the faulty water meter with a new water meter at complainant's own cost. Opposite parties shall permit the complainant to install a new meter and raise fresh bill on the basis of average meter reading for three months for the whole period retrospectively from 11/99 onwards. Complainant shall remit the fresh bill amount in 6 equal monthly installments commencing from the month of issuance of the fresh bill. There will be no order as to compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Both parties shall bear and suffer their costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of June, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.179/2000 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: PW2 : P. Purushothaman II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of letter dated 26/3/90 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. P2 : Photocopy of complaint dated 20/11/97 addressed to the Chief Engineer. P3 : Copy of letter dated 15/2/99 issued to the Chief Engineer, KWA, Tvpm by Consumer Protection Centre of Kerala P4 : Copy of notice dated 9/11/99 for Rs.6,451/- P5 : Copy of Regd. Letter dated 15/11/99 issued by the complainant. P6 : Copy of Rough Layout of pipe lines along with LIC – Kallampally Road. P7 : Copy of notice dated 9/11/99 P8 : Copy of notice dated 1/7/2000 P9 : Copy of notice (original) dated 16/2/2001 P10 : Copy of notice dated 21/1/2002 P11 : Copy of Provisional Invoice Card of consumer No. UPW-1358 P12 : Acknowledgment card dated 10/3/90, 8/8/90, 11/3/92, 20/11/97, 15/2/99 & 15/11/99 postal acknowledgment (certificate of posting) dated 16/11/97, 22/11/97 and 15/2/99 P13 : Copy of newspaper Malayala Manorama dated 25/11/00 P14 : Notice dated 23/12/08 for Rs.18,291/-
III. Opposite parties witness: NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents:
D1 : Copy of consumer ledger of consumer No.UPW 1358
D2 : Consumer ledger dated 15/6/2002 of consumer No.UPW-1358 with demand details from 12/96 to 4/98
D3 : " from 5/98 to 5/2002.
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 179/2000 Filed on 29/03/2000
Dated: 30..06..2009 Complainant: P.K. Divakaran, Bhadra Deepam, Kallampally, Medical College P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 011. Opposite parties:
The Asst. Executive Engineer, Water Authority Sub Division, North Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram. The Chief Engineer (Distribution), Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S. Bhanu Krishnakumar)
This O.P having been heard on 30..05..2009, the Forum on 30..06..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.UPW 1358, that the complainant's premise was supplied water through old pipe line taped by the pipeline to Kallampally – Valyunni Road, that the water tank in the complainant's premises is fitted on the roof of the building which is nearly 8 meters high and the pipe line is directly connected to the tank from the metering point and the distribution of water is arranged from the water tank, that unless there is high pressure in the pumping system the complainant will not get drinking water, that normally water supplied through the pipeline will flow to the lower level and hence the complainant is not supplied with water for the last ten years, that the water meter fitted in the complainant's premises is not working since 1990, and that the supplier is bound to maintain the meter in good working condition, without which he cannot assess the quantum of water consumed. Due to utter discrimination and harassment made by the opposite parties, the complainant forced to dig a well and installed a pump set to meet his requirements early in 1990, that the opposite parties issued a notice on 9/11/99 asking him to remit Rs.6,451/- for the period from 4/90 to 10/99 without showing any details, that on receipt of the said notice, the complainant sent petition to opposite parties requesting them to make an enquiry to the matter to cancel the notice dated 9/11/1999 and to exempt the complainant from the liability to pay the amount, but no action was taken by opposite parties. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to give drinking water to the complainant, to replace the existing faulty meter with a good working meter and to issue bill based on the correct water consumption, to exempt the complainant for the payment of water charges from 4/90 onwards, to cancel the illegal notice dated 9/11/99 and pay compensation and cost to the complainant.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the water supply connection to the complainant as well as residents of the area are from the PVC distribution main along Kallampally, that the supply to this area is in alternate days, that during the turn the consumers of this locality are getting water, and that during the site inspection on May and June of 2001, water was available at the taps even during day time. Most of the residents of this area were getting water during this turn, that the meter of this connection is not working since 1990. The responsibility for the safe custody and sound condition of the meter vests with the consumers and consumer has to replace the faulty meter with a new one. There is no discrimination on the part of opposite parties, the complainant is a regular defaulter of water charges for the last 10 years. He had made no remittance since 3/1990. Hence opposite parties served a cut off notice. The consumption is assessed as per Rule 17(d), that the request for cancelling the notice is against rules. The reliefs claimed are not at all maintainable. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get notice dated 9/11/1999 and other subsequent bills cancelled? Whether the opposite party is liable to replace the faulty meter with a new working meter? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to any other reliefs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and Exts.P1 to P14 were marked. One witness as PW2 has been examined and cross examined by opposite parties. In rebuttal, the 1st opposite party has filed a counter affidavit and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked. 5. Points (i) to (iv) : It is the case of the complainant that water to the complainant's premises was supplied through old pipeline, that the water tank in the premises is fitted on the roof of the building, that normally water supplied through the pipeline will flow to the lower level and hence complainant was not supplied with water from 1990 onwards, that water meter fitted in the premises is not working since 1990, and that a notice dated 9/11/1999 was served by opposite parties to the complainant for Rs.6,451/-. Ext.P4 is the copy of notice dated 9/11/1999 for Rs.6,451/- addressed to the complainant. A perusal of Ext.P4 reveals that the said amount of Rs. 6,451/- is towards water charges from 4/90 to 10/99. It is admitted by opposite parties in the version that the said area is comparatively an elevated area and water will not be always entering into the OH tank constructed at the roof of the 1st floor during day time, that most of the consumers of this locality are collecting water on the ground level tank and pumping to the over head tanks. Further, opposite parties submit that the supply to this area is in alternate days. During the turn the consumers of this locality were also getting water. Opposite parties also admit that the water meter of this connection is not working since 1990. Submission by the opposite parties is that as per provision of the Water Supply Regulation. When a meter goes out of order, the same shall be got replaced or repaired by the consumer at the cost of the consumer. In this case no step was seen taken by the consumer to replace the faulty meter with a new one. PW2, in his examination in chief, has deposed that, complainant has dug well due to the non-availability of pipe water. In his cross examination, PW2 denied the suggestion put by opposite parties that water supply was available in alternate days. PW2 has deposed further that water supply was not available since 1991. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that, no adjustment bill was seen furnished by opposite parties prior to Ext.P4 notice, nor did opposite parties have a case that they have issued any adjustment bill on the basis of actual meter reading. Both parties admit meter is not working, nor did complainant replace the old meter with new one. As per Ext.P4 provisional invoice card (copy) it is seen that “Rate revised from Rs.67/- to Rs. 23/- as per self declaration from 4/96 onwards”. There is no material on record to show that complainant has remitted any amount from 4/90 onwards. Ext.P4 notice was issued to the complainant on 9/11/1999. As per Ext.P4, complainant was directed to remit Rs.6,451/-. Along with Ext.P4, no bill was seen issued by opposite parties to substantiate the mode of calculation. If the complainant failed to remit the amount as per Ext.P4 Provisional Invoice Card, opposite parties would have taken action as per provisions of Water Supply Regulation. In this case no such action is seen taken by opposite parties, till 9/11/1999, to recover the water charges from the consumer. Revision of rate from Rs.67/- to Rs.23/- from 4/90 and non-initiation of action against the complainant for the last 9 years, together with the deposition of PW2 would justify the allegation in the complaint that the water supply was not readily available to the consumer concerned during the said period. In view of the above we find the complainant is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.6,451/- as per Ext.P4 notice dated 9/11/1999. After the issuance of Ext.P4 notice, opposite parties had served consumer bills dated 2/11/2005, 23rd May 2007, 23rd June 2007, 22nd April 2008, the copies of the said bills furnished by the complainant reveal that still the meter is not working. The faulty meter need be replaced with a new meter by the complainant. Ext.P14 is the Demand and Disconnection notice dated 23/12/2008. As per Ext.P14, the bill amount is Rs.18,003/- which would include the arrear amount upto 11/99. Taking into consideration of the totality of circumstance of the case, we find it will be expedient and justice will be well met if complainant is exonerated from the liability to pay water charge as per Ext.P4 notice dated 9/11/1999. Complainant ought to replace the faulty meter with a new meter at the cost of the consumer. On installation of the new meter opposite parties have to raise fresh bill on the basis of aveage meter reading for 3 months restrospectively for the whole period from 11/99 onwards.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Ext.P4 cut off notice dated 9/11/1999 and other subsequent bills issued by opposite parties are hereby cancelled. Complainant is exonerated from the liability to pay water charge as per Ext.P4 notice dated 9/11/99. Complainant shall replace the faulty water meter with a new water meter at complainant's own cost. Opposite parties shall permit the complainant to install a new meter and raise fresh bill on the basis of average meter reading for three months for the whole period retrospectively from 11/99 onwards. Complainant shall remit the fresh bill amount in 6 equal monthly installments commencing from the month of issuance of the fresh bill. There will be no order as to compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Both parties shall bear and suffer their costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of June, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.179/2000 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: PW2 : P. Purushothaman II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of letter dated 26/3/90 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. P2 : Photocopy of complaint dated 20/11/97 addressed to the Chief Engineer. P3 : Copy of letter dated 15/2/99 issued to the Chief Engineer, KWA, Tvpm by Consumer Protection Centre of Kerala P4 : Copy of notice dated 9/11/99 for Rs.6,451/- P5 : Copy of Regd. Letter dated 15/11/99 issued by the complainant. P6 : Copy of Rough Layout of pipe lines along with LIC – Kallampally Road. P7 : Copy of notice dated 9/11/99 P8 : Copy of notice dated 1/7/2000 P9 : Copy of notice (original) dated 16/2/2001 P10 : Copy of notice dated 21/1/2002 P11 : Copy of Provisional Invoice Card of consumer No. UPW-1358 P12 : Acknowledgment card dated 10/3/90, 8/8/90, 11/3/92, 20/11/97, 15/2/99 & 15/11/99 postal acknowledgment (certificate of posting) dated 16/11/97, 22/11/97 and 15/2/99 P13 : Copy of newspaper Malayala Manorama dated 25/11/00 P14 : Notice dated 23/12/08 for Rs.18,291/-
III. Opposite parties witness: NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents:
D1 : Copy of consumer ledger of consumer No.UPW 1358
D2 : Consumer ledger dated 15/6/2002 of consumer No.UPW-1358 with demand details from 12/96 to 4/98
D3 : " from 5/98 to 5/2002.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
