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. 455/2003 Filed on 17.11.2003

Dated : 30.06.2009

Complainants:

1. K.N. Narayanaru, T.C 50/1046, Thaliyal, Karamana P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. K. Raveendran, T.C 50/1046, Thaliyal, Karamana P.O, Tvm.

3. P.S. Suresh, T.C 50/1046, Thaliyal, Karamana P.O, Tvpm.

4. N. Jayan, T.C 50/1046, Thaliyal, Karamana P.O, Tvpm.

5. T.K. Ravi, T.C 50/1046, Thaliyal, Karamana P.O, Tvpm.

6. G. Brite, T.C 50/1046, Thaliyal, Karamana P.O, Tvpm.

(By adv. R. Padmanabha Pillai)

Opposite parties:

1. The Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Karamana Section, Poojappura P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Works Central Sub Division, P.T.P. Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

3. The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Santhamma Thomas)

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 28.04.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30.05.2009, the Forum on 30.06.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainants are consumers of opposite parties vide consumer No. KMA 8997/N, that the monthly charges for water consumed are being paid regularly, that the entire dues upto 8/03 had been paid. The said water connection was taken in 1995 as non-domestic connection for the purpose of repair and improvement of the building No. T.C 50/1045, which is owned by the 1^st complainant and occupied by all other complainants as tenants. After repair and improvement of the building complainants 2 to 6 began to reside in the building in March 1996. In all the 5 rooms in the building only one person is residing in each room, the said rooms are rented out to complainants 2 to 6. Though the connection is in the name of the 1^st complainant, complainants 2 to 6 are the actual beneficiaries of water supply. Opposite parties did not take meter reading as prescribed by law. On 22.09.2003 1^st complainant was served a bill claiming arrear of Rs. 492/- alleging to be dues upto 6/03 plus monthly dues at Rs. 154/- for July and August. In the said bill the status of the meter is recorded as 'not working'. The reading on 04.02.2000 is recorded as 716 KL and that on 08.08.2001 as 1091 KL and average monthly consumption as per the said bill is 20.07 KL, the monthly charge for the said consumption is noted as Rs. 154/-. Complainant applied for replacement of meter vide his application dated 21.10.2003 and complainant purchased water meter which has been certified okay by the 2^nd opposite party. Before the installation of the new meter 1^st opposite party issued a bill dated 21.10.2003 for Rs. 6,201/- for the period upto 08/03. In the said bill monthly charges is mentioned as Rs. 256/-. The said bill is issued without any basis. The said bill is the outcome of mere guess work. Hence this complaint to cancel the bill dated 21.10.2003, to instal new water meter purchased by the 1^st complainant, to give the status of domestic category with retrospective effect from March 1996 onwards, to re-fix the monthly charges and to pay compensation and costs.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that only the 1^st complainant is a consumer of opposite parties and other complainants are not consumers of the opposite parties. The above said connection is in the name of the 1^st complainant and the privity of contract exists between the 1^st complainant and opposite parties. It is admitted by the 1^st complainant himself that complainants 2 to 6 are tenants of the 1^st complainant. The connection from the inception is non-domestic, 1^st complainant is letting out the rooms to the tenants and hence the said building is used as a lodge. 1^st complainant has not given any application for changing the status from non-domestic to domestic. Meter readings were taken at regular intervals and bill issued can vary as per the actual consumption. The meter for the 1^st complainant's water connection was not working. The calculations are arrived at in accordance with the relevant statement. The bill issued to the complainant is correct. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the 1^st complainant is entitled to get the bill dated 21.10.2003 cancelled?

2. Whether the 1^st complainant is entitled to installation of new water meter?

3. Whether the 1^st complainant is entitled to get the status of domestic category with retrospective effect from March 1996?

4. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

5. Whether the 1^st complainant is entitled to get any compensation and costs?

In support of the complaint, 1^st complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and Exts. P1 to P10 were marked. In rebuttal 1^st opposite party has filed affidavit. Opposite parties did not file any documents. The 1^st complainant has not been cross examined by the opposite parties.

Points (i) to (v):- Admittedly the consumer No. KMA 8997/N stands in the name of the 1^st complainant. 1^st complainant himself admitted that the rooms in the building concerned are rented out to the complainants 2 to 6 and complainants 2 to 6 are the actual beneficiaries of water supply. It has been the case of the complainant that complainants 2 to 6 are paying water charges in equal shares from March 1996 onwards, and 1^st complainant is collecting their share and remitting the same in the office of the opposite parties. It has also been the case of the complainant that the building was and is used for residential purpose only and water is consumed only for that purpose. Opposite parties resisted the complaint by submitting that the premises are used for a commercial activity, that the lodging is being conducted by the 1^st complainant since it is admitted by the 1^st complainant that the rooms are letting out to tenants. It is to be presumed as lodge, thereby the premises are used for commercial activities. As such complainants 2 to 6 have no locus standi to file the complaint. Since the 1^st complainant admitted that the rooms in the building concerned were rented to complainants 2 to 6, the contention of the opposite parties that 1^st complainant is conducting a lodging business stands proved and complainant is liable to remit water charges under non-domestic category as prescribed by law. The next point requiring consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the bill dated 21.10.2003 cancelled. In this context it is to be noted as per Ext. P2 provisional invoice card that complainant is seen remitted water charges upto 3/03. As per Ext. P2 the monthly amount to be remitted has been revised from Rs. 60/- to Rs. 154/-. On the overleaf of Ext. P2 it is seen recorded the amounts remitted on various occasions by the complainant. Ext. P3 is a consumer bill dated 22.07.2003 for Rs. 800/-. In the said bill it is to be noted that status of the meter is recorded as not working. Further it is recorded that dues upto 6/03 is Rs. 478/-. Water charges for months from 7/03 to 8/03 is Rs. 308/-. The total amount claimed is Rs. 800/-. Ext. P8 is another consumer bill dated 21.10.2003 for Rs. 6,457/-,wherein the dues upto 8/03 claimed is Rs. 6201/-, status of the meter is not working. It is to be pointed out that as per Ext. P3 bill arrear dues upto 6/03 is Rs. 478/- only. As per Ext. P8 within two months the said arrears rose to Rs. 6,201/-. There is no reason for an arrear bill for Rs. 6,021/- within two months when monthly consumption till then according to the opposite parties is 20.7 KL. Complainant has the right to know the mode of calculation of water charges etc. from the opposite parties. Opposite party has never produced any documents to substantiate their contention that dues upto 6/03 amounting to Rs. 478/- rose to Rs. 6,201/- upto 8/03. As per the provisions of the Water Supply Regulations the actual amount due must be ascertained on reading the meter and necessary adjustment bill showing the amounts due must be sent to the complainant once in 6 months. Admittedly water meter is not working. On perusal of Ext. P3 and P8 it is crystal clear that Ext. P8 is prepared without any basis as such we find complainant is entitled get Ext.P8 bill dated 21.10.2003 cancelled. It is admitted by both parties that meter is not working and Ext. P4 is the copy of application sent by the 1^st complainant to the 1^st opposite party in order to take steps to instal new meter in the said premises. Ext. P4 application is seen dated 21.10.2003. Ext. P6 is the bill dated 21.10.2003 issued by Kailasesara Agencies issued to the 1^st complainant. Ext. P7 is the certificate issued by office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Works Central Sub Division dated 26.09.2003. Ext. P9 is a copy of the notice issued to 1^st complainant by opposite parties intimating him that water supply will be cut off from the said premises after 7 days from the date of service of notice to 1^st complainant for a sum of Rs. 9,236/- is not paid. Ext. P10 is the receipt issued by opposite parties for Rs. 2,000/- towards water charges. The said amount is seen remitted by the 1^st complainant as per the direction of this Forum to avoid disconnection of water supply. As per the provisions of Water Supply Regulation if water meter is found faulty it has to be replaced by the consumer with the consent of the opposite parties. Complainant has already remitted Rs. 2,000/- as per the direction of this Forum. Since the meter is not working, replacement of the old meter with new meter is necessitated and opposite parties need to permit the complainant to instal the new meter in the place of faulty meter. On installation of the new meter opposite party shall raise fresh bill on the basis of the average meter readings for 3 months for the whole period from 7/03 onwards. As per Ext. P3 upto 6/03 there was an arrear of Rs. 478/-, that is to be included in the new bill to be issued to the complainant. Rs. 2,000/- remitted by the 1^st complainant as per Ext. P10 receipt dated 30.07.2004 is to be deducted from the new bill to be issued to the complainant. Opposite party shall also deduct further amounts if any remitted by the 1^st complainant towards water charges after 30.07.2004.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The bill dated 21.10.2003 for Rs. 6,457/- (Ext. P8) issued by 1^st opposite party is hereby cancelled. Opposite party shall permit the 1^st complainant to instal a new meter in the place of old faulty meter and raise fresh consumer bill on the basis of average meter readings for 3 months for the period retrospectively from 7/03 onwards, after deduction of Rs. 2,000/- as per Ext. P10 receipt dated 30.07.2004 and further amounts if any remitted by the complainant after 30.07.2004 towards water charge. 1^st complainant shall remit the said bill amount in 5 equal monthly instalments commencing from the month of issuance of the new bill. There will be no compensation and costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.

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 June 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 455/2003

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of receipt dated 21.10.2003 for Rs. 800/- issued by KWA.

P2 - Photocopy of provisional invoice card dated 31.08.1995.

P3 - Photocopy of bill dated 22.09.2003 for Rs. 800/- issued by KWA.

P4 - Photocopy of application dated 21.10.2003 by the complainant addressed to KWA.

P5 - Photocopy of proforma dated 21.10.2003.

P6 - Photocopy of cash bill dated 21.10.2003 issued by Kailasesara Agencies, Karamana, Tvpm.

P7 - Photocopy of certificate dated 26.09.2003 issued by KWA

P8 - Photocopy of bill dated 21.10.2003 for Rs. 6457 issued by KWA.

P9 - Copy of notice dated 20.07.2004

P10 - Copy of receipt dated 30.07.2004 for Rs. 2000/-.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT