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. 108/2004 Filed on 05.03.2004
Dated : 15.09.2010
Complainant:
Chithambaram, S.M. Cottage, Thirupuram P.O, Neyyattinkara.
(By adv. J. Robinson)
Opposite parties :
The Chief Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram.
The Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Nellikakuzhi, Kanjiramkulam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Santhamma Thomas)
This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.06.2010, the Forum on 15.09.2010 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. T.P 114, that complainant had been paying water charges regularly upto 03/91 in Thirupuram Grama Panchayath and thereafter water charge was being remitted to Kerala Water Authority, that the last payment was made on 12/03, that when the complainant approached the opposite parties for payment of water charges for the month of 01/04, opposite party has noted in the provisional invoice card that Rs. 7,164/- as arrears upto 12/03, that opposite party has not disclosed the details of arrears, that the calculation made by opposite parties was wrong and without any basis, that opposite party is duty bound to inspect water readings and prescribe the charges from time to time, that he is ready to pay water charges as per the readings of water meter from 01/04. Hence this complaint to quash the excess bill issued by opposite parties.
Opposite parties filed statement of facts contending interalia that the consumer No. T.P 114 owned by the complainant was handed over to the P.H.E.D, present Kerala Water Authority from 03/91 onwards, that during the time of handing over, the consumer had remitted minimum charges as per the panchayath register, that as per the register there is an arrear of Rs. 7,164/- upto 12/03, that ledger shows the reading taken periodically and the bill was calculated as per the readings. Complainant had paid only minimum water charge for 10 KL, that consumer is liable to pay the arrear amount. Hence opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per bill dated 17.12.2003?
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?
Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. T.P 114. There is no dispute on the point that opposite parties claimed an amount of Rs. 7,164/- as per the endorsement on provisional invoice card issued to complainant. Ext. P1 is the provisional invoice card. On perusal of Ext. P1 it is seen that an arrear amount of Rs. 7,164/- is due upto 12/03. On the payment schedule printed overleaf of Ext. P1, it is seen that complainant had remitted Rs. 228/- per month upto 12/03. It is stated in Ext. P1 that initially the monthly installment was Rs. 22/- per month. Thereafter it is seen enhanced to Rs. 172/- per month from 10/02. Ext. P2 is the meter reading bill dated 17.12.2003 for Rs. 6,581/-. On perusal of Ext. P2 it is seen written that arrears due upto 02/03 is Rs. 6,579/-. But it is not clear from which date water charge fell due. Ext. P3 is the certificate issued by Secretary, Thirupuram Grama Panchayath stating that as on 22.09.1986 water consumption was 776000 litre. Thereafter complainant had remitted minimum water charge of Rs. 10/- per month upto 03/91. Ext. P4 is a letter submitted by the complainant before the Assistant Engineer, KWA. In the said Ext. P4, complainant has mentioned about the certificate issued by Thirupuram Grama Panchayath regarding the payment of water charges to the said Panchayath. Ext. P5 is the letter submitted before the Assistant Executive Engineer, KWA by the complainant. Ext. P6 is the copy of the advocate notice addressed to opposite parties stating that on repeated requests made by the complainant water authority officials were reluctant to issue bills stating the details of arrears and finally on 17.01.2004 opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 6,581/- towards arrears upto 12/03. Ext. P7 is the reply from Assistant Engineer, Water Supply Section, Kanjiramkulam to complainant stating that consumer consumed water at a minimum rate upto 07/01 by using below 10 KL. From 08/01 to 09/02 consumer used water at an average rate of 76 KL per month. That from 10/02 to 08/03 actual consumption of water was 48 KL per month, that at present consumer is using water at a minimum rate. It is further stated in Ext. P7 that Assistant Engineer had inspected the site and convinced that the meter was working and there was no leakage of water. The very case of the complainant is that meter reading was not taken by the opposite parties as prescribed by Water Supply Regulations and no adjustment bill was issued accordingly. Admittedly as per Ext. P7 reply notice issued by opposite party, complainant has used water at a minimum rate upto 07/01. Further from 08/01 to 09/02 opposite party has replied that consumer had used water at an average rate of 76 KL and thereafter at 48 KL per month upto 08/03. Had opposite party taken meter reading on 09/02 opposite parties would definitely have issued an adjustment bill to the complainant. In this case no such adjustment bill issued during the said period. Further it is to be noted that as per Ext. P7 from 10/02 to 08/03 complainant had used water at the rate of 48 KL per month. That means opposite party had taken meter reading on 02.08.2003, but no adjustment bill seen issued to complainant accordingly. It is only on 12/03 opposite party had issued such a bill to the complainant. The very case of the complainant is that opposite party is duty bound to inspect the water reading and prescribed water charges from time to time. Admittedly, opposite party failed to do so as prescribed in the Water Supply Regulations. Moreover as per Ext. P7 it is reported by the opposite party that the Assistant Engineer had inspected the site and convinced that the meter is working and there is no leakage of water. But opposite party did not furnish such inspection report before this Forum to substantiate their contention in the version. It is further to be pointed out that from 17.12.2003 onwards as per the water consumption register furnished by the opposite party complainant had used water at an average at 24 KL per month from 17.12.2003 to 12.10.2004 which fell to 13 KL upto 01.01.2005. Opposite party never adduced any evidence to show that complainant has misused water. In view of the documents furnished and of the foregoing discussions we do not find any probability for a consumer who had used water below 10 KL per month upto 07/01, had used water as alleged by opposite party upto 12/03. Further it is admitted by opposite party that complainant is using minimum water after 08/03. That means the alleged excess use of water is from 08/01 to 08/03 for a smaller period of 2 years. Opposite party is duty bound to explain the manner in which complainant has used such quantum of water during the short span of 2 years. Though complainant has been cross examined by opposite parties nothing was elicited from him to disprove the contention of the complainant. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the amount claimed by opposite party from the complainant is not supported by cogent and clinching evidence. To avoid further litigation, we are of the considered opinion that raising of bill on the basis of 20 KL per month from 08/01 to 12/03 would meet the ends of justice. Non-issuance of adjustment bill as per the conditions of Water Supply Regulations would definitely amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The amount claimed by opposite party as per Ext. P2 bill dated 17.12.2003 is cancelled. Opposite party is directed to raise fresh bill on the basis of 20 KL per month from 08/01 to 12/03 after adjusting amount if any paid by the complainant during the said period and complainant shall remit the said bill amount to be issued by the opposite party. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no compensation and 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 15th day of September 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD,
President.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 108/2004
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - Chithamparam Nadar
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Provisional invoice card issued to complainant.
P2 - Meter reading bill dated 17.12.2003 for Rs. 6,581/-.
P3 - Certificate issued by Secretary, Thirupuram Grama Panchayat
P4 - Letter submitted by the complainant before the Assistant
Engineer, KWA.
P5 - Letter submitted before the Assistant Executive Engineer,
KWA by the complainant.
P6 - Copy of advocate notice addressed to opposite parties.
P7 - Reply from Assistant Engineer, Water Supply Section,
Kanjiramkulam to complainant.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
PRESIDENT
jb
