BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 302/2001 Filed on 26.07.2001

Dated : 30.04.2010

Complainant:

M.K. Madhusoodhan, S/o Madhavikutty Amma, T.C 2648/28, Thoppu Veedu, Chettikulangara, Thiruvananthapuram – 1 now residing at Chandra Mangalam, Avalookunnu P.O, Alappuzha District.

(By adv. N. Satheesh Kumar)

Opposite parties:

1. The Assistant Engineer, W.W. Section No. II, Pattoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. The Executive Engineer, P.H. Division, K.W.A, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. C. Sasidharan Pillai)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 02.12.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.03.2010, the Forum on 30.04.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. PCH 75 of Pattoor Section, that opposite party issued provisional invoice card by which the monthly amount to be paid is Rs. 49/-, that complainant has been regularly paying the said amount from 06/94 to 02/01, whileso opposite party informed the complainant that an amount of Rs. 20,338/- is outstanding as arrears of water charges, that opposite party did not issue any separate bill for the said amount but noted the same in the complainant's provisional invoice card. It is submitted by the complainant that he never used any excess water and he had no occasion to use the same and hence amount assessed by opposite party is without any basis, that thereafter opposite party's subordinates came to complainant's house and informed that they are going to take the water meter for checking after installing a temporary water meter. It is further submitted that the department will check the consumption of water for 6 months and if it is found that the consumption is low then opposite party will write off the arrears. It was on that specific undertaking that complainant permitted the staff of opposite party to take the water meter. Thereafter on 03.03.2001 opposite party informed him that the water meter was checked and it was found to be faulty and the same was over running by 12% and thereby deducted an amount of Rs. 5,764/- and directed the complainant to remit Rs. 15,627/-. Opposite party did not issue a separate bill. Complainant protested against the said stand of the opposite party and requested to give a detailed statement of water consumption for the last 7 years, so that he can verify the consumption of water. In the meantime opposite party's employees took away the new meter and replaced the old faulty meter in the premises. Stating all these complainant issued an advocate notice to opposite parties. Opposite party did not take any steps for replacing the faulty meter. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to instal new water meter and to quash the additional demand made by opposite parties.

Opposite parties filed version contending that monthly water charge was fixed as Rs. 49/- on the basis of consumption from 02/92 to 12/96, that water charge thereafter revised to Rs. 61/- from 04/99 due to enhancement of water charges by the opposite party, that the revised amount was noted in the provisional invoice card also, that the bill was issued on the basis of the enhanced rate, that complainant did not approach the opposite party for a detailed bill. Thereafter it was found that complainant consumed 77.3 KL per month from 01/99 to 07/99, 170.8 KL per month from 08/99 to 02/00. Water charge is calculated according to the increased average on the basis of actual readings. As consumer had complained fast running of the meter, the existing meter was taken away for checking and temporary meter was substituted. After checking the water meter, it was found that the meter was running 12% fast, thereby opposite party deducted an amount of Rs. 5,764/- and directed the complainant to remit Rs. 15,627/-. The amount calculated is legal and justifiable and as per the statutory provisions. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 15,627/- as arrears of water charges?

2. Whether the water meter is faulty?

3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and costs?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1, in lieu of examination in chief and has marked Exts. P1 to P6. Complainant has not been cross examined by opposite parties. In rebuttal, opposite parties did not file affidavit or documents.

Points (i) to (iv):- Admittedly, complainant is the consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. PCH 75 of KWA, Pattoor Section. It has been the case of the complainant that on the basis of consumption of water, opposite party has issued provisional invoice card by which opposite party has fixed a sum of Rs. 49/- as monthly water charge. Ext. P1 is the copy of the provisional invoice card. As per Ext. P1, connection is under domestic category and from 6/94 onwards monthly amount to be remitted comes to Rs. 49/-. On a perusal of Ext. P1 it is seen that there was an arrear of Rs. 96/- as on 24.06.1994. On verification of payment as shown in the payment schedule (Ext. P1), it is found that complainant had remitted the monthly amount of Rs. 49/- from 24.06.1994 to 24.02.2001. Further it is seen written at the top of Ext. P1 provisional invoice card that arrear upto 10/2000 comes to Rs. 17,319/-. Ext. P2 is a letter dated 03.03.2001 addressed to complainant from the 1^st opposite party in regard to remittance of arrear of water charges and replacement of meter in response to complainant's letter dated 26.02.2001 stating that the water meter taken from his premises was checked and it was found to be working 12% fast and excess amount billed Rs. 5,764/- was deducted and the bill revised to Rs. 15,076/- upto 02/01. As regards replacement of the faulty meter, it is stated in Ext. P2 that as per the usual procedure only after settling the arrears of water charges, opposite party would allow to replace the faulty meter at complainant's own cost. Ext. P3 is the copy of the letter dated 12.03.2001 from the complainant to 1^st opposite party requesting him to serve a detailed statement of water consumption for the last seven years. In response to Ext. P3, 1^st opposite party had sent a letter dated 02.04.2001 to complainant by Ext. P4 stating that the bill amount comes to Rs. 15,627/-. It is seen mentioned in Ext. P4 that “regarding the fastness of meter, it is very easy to estimate it, if you know some basic arithmetics”. Dissatisfied with the reply by Ext. P4, complainant sent an advocate notice dated 05.05.2001 by Ext. P5 to Executive Engineer, narrating all the events and requesting him to cancel the excess amount on the basis of faulty meter reading and to replace the faulty meter with a new meter. Ext. P6 is the notice dated 13.08.2001 addressed to complainant informing him that if the amount mentioned in the notice not remitted within the time (7 days) allowed, the supply of water will be cut off from the said premises at his expense. Opposite party has filed version contending that the water charge was revised to Rs. 61/- from 4/99 due to enhancement of water charges by KWA. Opposite party did not adduce evidence by way of affidavit, nor did opposite party furnish the meter reading register, nor did opposite party issue a detailed statement of excess bill as requested by the complainant by Ext. P3, nor did opposite party cross examine the complainant to controvert affidavit filed by the complainant. The affidavit filed by the complainant remains uncontroverted. The onus of proving excess consumption of water by complainant would lay on opposite parties. It is pertinent to note that complainant is not a defaulter of payment of water charge as claimed by opposite party by virtue of Ext. P1 invoice card. As per Water Supply Regulation (13) a) The water consumed at the premises of a consumer shall be assessed at such intervals as decided by the Executive Engineer from time to time, based on meter readings from meter fixed to the house connection at the premises of the consumer, b) the Authority may also fix the monthly rate of water charge based on his average consumption for any previous 6 months in case of existing connection and based on estimated consumption in case of new connection issue a provisional card indicating therein the amount of water charges payable by the consumer every month, the date of payment etc. that the Authority may introduce a slab system for collection of water charge, that if the water charges already remitted by the consumer is found to be in excess/short based on the meter readings taken subsequently, the consumer shall pay to the Authority the amount short remitted and the Authority shall adjust the amount collected in excess from the consumer in the subsequent payments. An adjustment bill shall be issued once in every six months to the consumer indicating the excess or short remitted by the consumer. In the case in hand no adjustment bill is seen issued by opposite party to complainant. No water reading register furnished to substantiate the contention of opposite parties in the version that complainant has used 77 KL per month from 1/99 to 7/99, 170 KL from 8/99 to 02/2000. Opposite party failed to establish the contention in the version that complainant has used excess water. In view of the foregoing discussions and of evidence available on records, we are of the considered opinion that there is no basis for opposite party to claim a sum of Rs. 15,627/- from the complainant and that complainant is not liable to pay the said amount, while complainant is liable to pay revised water charge at the rate of Rs. 61/- from 4/99.

In the result, complaint is allowed. The letter dated 02.04.2001 (Ext. P4) issued by opposite party claiming Rs. 15,627/- is hereby quashed. Complainant shall pay water charges at the rate of Rs. 61/- from 4/99 till the date of demand (02.04.2001). Amount if any remitted during the said period by the complainant shall be adjusted. After remitting the aforesaid amount, opposite party shall permit the complainant to replace faulty meter with new meter at complainant's own cost. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. 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 30^th day of April 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 302/2001

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of provisional invoice card

P2 - Copy of letter dated 03.03.2001

P3 - Copy of letter dated 12.03.2001

P4 - Copy of letter dated 02.04.2001

P5 - Copy of advocate notice dated 05.05.2001

P6 - Original notice dated 13.08.2001

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb