IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 28th day of February, 2011
Filed on 17.01.10
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.40/10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.Roy Issac, 1. The Chief Engineer,
Padinjare Veedu, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram.
Asramam Ward,
Avalookkunnu.P.O., 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Alappuzha District. Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Sub division,
(By Adv.C.Muraleedharan) Vazhicherry, Alappuzha.
(By Adv.S.Naushad)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows: - The complainant is the consumer of the opposite party since 2003 bearing the consumer No.8282/-AWN. The complainant and his wife were the only residents wherein the said connection exists. The said water connection of the opposite party provides water scarcely to the complainant. The complainant and his wife had to stay away from their residence continuously for 6 months in 2007 and 9 months in 2009 for treatment. Initially, the opposite party charged Rs.39/- (Rupees thirty nine only) and later on Rs.52/- (Rupees fifty two only) per month for the complainant's water consumption. The complainant had cleared off the water charges with out default unto 2005. When matters stood thus, the opposite party, vide letter dated 12th January 2008 intimated the complainant that the complainant had defaulted the water charges, and the same fell arrears to the tune of Rs.50,088/- (Rupees fifty thousand eighty eight only). The complainant was also required to turn up in the Revenue Adalat conducted in Alappuzha. The complainant visited the office of the 2nd opposite party time and again to enquire as to the premises wherein the exorbitant bill was issued. The opposite party has no material to substantiate the said bill. The opposite party had no consistent stand or convincing version as to the amount arrived on by the opposite party. The bill in question is absolutely baseless. The opposite party placed the complainant in the grip of apprehension that the water connection would be severed off right away, once the bill amount is not remitted. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum seeking compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being sent, the opposite party turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the opposite party took the meter reading of the water connection of the complainant in 4/2006. The reading showed that the complainant consumed 830KL water as on the said date. There after on 10th October 2008, the water meter was again inspected and the same reading viz.830KLwas noticed. As the reading remained unchanged the opposite party recorded the said meter as 'not working'. The meter was examined in 28th January 2010, and it was observed that the reading came down to 627KL from 830KL. On the very next day, the opposite party took the reading of the complainant's connection. The reading showed 628KLconsumption by the complainant. On the basis of this context, the opposite party figured out that the complainant had been consuming lKL of water per day. The complainant repaired the nonfunctioning meter and tampered the same to let the reading come down to 637KL from 830KL, the opposite party fervently alleges. The complainant defaulted the water charge since 2003. The bill issued to the complainant is for the amount what he exactly owed to the opposite party. On the basis of what had been elaborated above the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.55,976/-(Rupees fifty five thousand nine hundred seventy six only), the opposite party submits.
2. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1, and the documents Exbts Al to A2 were marked. Exbt Al is the consumer card and A2 is the demand notice issued by the opposite party. On the side of the opposite party, its Asst. Ex. Engineer was examined as RW1, and the documents Exbts Bl and B2 were marked. Exbt Bl is the copy of the extract of the Meter reader's Hand book and B2 is the copy of the details of the bill.
3. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties the questions come up before us for consideration is:-
(a) Whether the complainant tampered the 'Meter' as alleges by the opposite party?
(b) Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as claimed by the opposite party?
4. We perused the materials placed on record by the parties. It appears that the Exbt A2 letter issued by the opposite party caused the complainant move this Forum. The complainant case is that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party. As per the Exbt Al provisional invoice card issued by the opposite party, the monthly water charge to be remitted by the complainant at the start was Rs.39/- (Rupees thirty nine only), and later it was raised to Rs.52/- (Rupees fifty two only). The complainant cleared off the said charges with out default till 2005. The Exbt A2 notice is without any basis, the complainant asserts. We meticulously went through the contentions put forth by the opposite parties. The opposite parties’ contention is that, the 'Meter' of the complainant was examined in 4/2006. The meter reading was 830KL. On 10th October 2008, the meter reading remained same viz.830KL. The opposite party realized that the 'Meter' installed therein was not functioning. The Meter was again checked up only in 2008 to see strangely that the reading came down to 627KL. The opposite party verified the reading very next day to see that the reading went up to 628KL. The opposite party arrived on to the conclusion that the complainant had been using 1KL water per day. Obviously, on the basis of the said conclusion, the opposite party worked out the water charges from 2003 to 2010 to arrive on the amount in question of Rs.50,088 (Rupees fifty thousand eighty eight only). At the very outset, we observe that the reasoning put forward by the opposite party to arrive on the amount featured in Exbt.A2 notice sounds strange, rather preposterous. As per the opposite party themselves, the meter reading was taken in April 2006. The reading therein was 830KL. It is worthwhile to note that the opposite party made it a point to examine the meter again only in October 2008 viz. after around one and a half years. The reading remained the same 830KL. The opposite party detected that the meter was inoperative. Notwithstanding this, it took another year or more for the opposite party to get the meter again examined. Interestingly, the opposite party did not take any steps either to get the meter repaired or to observe the complainant's water consumption. Surprisingly again, the opposite party, for the reason best known to them, turned up to examine the 'faulty-meter' belatedly in 2010 only to learn that the reading in the meter was switched back to a lesser point. On a plain perusal of the pleas advanced by the opposite party, it is manifest that the assessment of the water charges or the manner in which the amount in question was arrived has no sufficient materials to substantiate the same. Moreover, according to the opposite party itself, the 'water meter' in the complainant premise was detected inoperative. Still, the opposite party did not take any steps either to repair or replace the same. We have no hesitation to hold that the contentions put forth by the opposite party do not merit acceptance, which at the first blush itself appear implausible. Needless to say, the case advanced by the complainant emerges probable, which rather remain unassailed. Thus, when the complainant case has not been rebutted by the opposite party, this Forum has no other course open but to accept the version advanced by the complainant. We have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in the service they rendered to the complainant.
5. In view of the forgoing discussion, we hold that the Exbt.A2 notice is unlawful, and hence invalid. Reaffirming the same, we hold that the amount stated therein stands cancelled. The opposite party is directed to repair or replace the water meter of the complainant defective if any. The opposite party are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.
Complaint stands disposed accordingly. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2011.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Roy Issac (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The consumer card
Ext. A1 - The demand notice issued by the opposite party
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - B.Jaya Prasad (Witness)
Ext. B1 - The copy of the extract of the Meter reader's Hand book
Ext. B2 - The copy of the details of the bill
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
