BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 02/2001<br /> Dated : 16.06.2008<br /> <br /> Complainants:<br /> <br /> 1.Consumer Vigilance Centre, Sreekovil, Kodunganoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram –13.<br /> <br /> 2.P. Lalithambika, Lalitha Bhavan, T.C 6/570, Elippode, Vattiyoorkavu P.O.<br /> <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> <br /> 1.The Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H.Division, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 2.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, PTP Division, Thiruvananthapuram – 38.<br /> <br /> (By adv. Rajesh.R) <br /> <br /> <br /> 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 14.03.2006, 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 06.05.2008, the Forum on 16.06.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT<br /> The case of the complainant is that complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and having domestic water connection vide consumer No. TMA-1711-70. On 02.11.2000, the water supply was cut off and water meter was disconnected and carried by the opposite parties without giving any prior notice to the complainant. Complainant made a complaint with the opposite party and on 04.11.2000 opposite party replaced the said meter and restored water connection. After disconnection of the said water meter complainant was directed by the opposite party to pay Rs. 810/- towards pending arrears, disconnection and reconnection charges. Complainant paid the said amount. The water consumption from the opposite party is always less than 10 KL per month. So complainant has to pay only minimum water charge. Complainant never misused drinking water. After reconnection complainant was directed to remit Rs. 102/- per month by the opposite party without any basis. Hence this complaint claiming refund of excess amount collected from the complainant by the opposite party, Rs. 5000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1500/- towards cost of the complaint.<br /> Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the complainant has taken water connection for domestic purpose, but complainant used water for non-domestic purpose without prior sanction of the opposite parties concerned. On receipt of a complaint from the neighbour of the complainant, opposite party directed the officials concerned to inspect the premises of the 2nd complainant, but the 2nd complainant prevented the officials of opposite parties from executing any work therein and hence in force of Sec. 45(d) of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerages Act, 1986 opposite party cut off water supply from the 2nd complainant’s premises on 02.11.2000. The 2nd complainant used water for other purposes especially for construction of building without prior sanction of opposite parties. There is a provision in Kerala Water Authority that complainant has to inform the opposite parties whether alternative source of water is available to the complainant other than the water through the service line. After disconnection complainant approached the opposite parties and submitted that water available under domestic purpose will not be used for non-domestic purpose. It is on the basis of the said assurance complainant was directed to pay Rs. 810/- including water charge for one month under non-domestic purpose and directed to pay water charge under domestic use. Complainant has defaulted payment from 10/98 onwards. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:-<br /> (i)Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and costs.<br /> To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of herself as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. On the part of opposite parties, Assistant Executive Engineer has filed affidavit. No documents were marked by opposite parties. <br /> Points (i) & (ii):- Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties and having domestic water connection to her house vide Consumer No. TMA 1711. Main thrust of argument advanced by the Consumer Vigilance Centre appearing for the 2nd complainant is that on 02.11.2000 the water supply in 2nd complainant's premises was cut off and water meter was disconnected and carried by the opposite parties without giving any prior notice to this effect. Thereafter on 04.11.2000 the said meter was replaced and water supply connection was restored by the opposite parties on complaint made by the 2nd complainant. Moreover, 2nd complainant was forced to remit Rs. 810/- towards pending arrears, disconnection and reconnection charges without issuing any notice to the 2nd complainant by the opposite parties. Submission by the opposite parties is that though the above said water connection was of domestic connection, 2nd complainant had used water for non-domestic purpose without prior sanction of the opposite parties concerned. On receipt of a complaint showing 2nd complainant is is using water for other purposes, opposite parties directed the officials concerned to inspect the premises of the 2nd complainant, but 2nd complainant prevented the officials of opposite parties from executing any work therein and hence by invoking Sec. 45 of Kerala Water Supply and Sewerages Act, opposite party cut off water supply from 2nd complainant's premises. Further submission by the opposite party is that 2nd complainant was using water for other purposes especially for construction of building without prior sanction of the opposite parties. 2nd complainant in her affidavit stated that she had never misused the drinking water and she had never done any house construction or modification, during the year 2000. Submission by the complainant is that for most of the domestic uses 2nd complainant is using water from her well. In the affidavit complainant asserted that there was no chance of making a complaint by her neighbour since they are using water from her well when there is no water supply by the KWA. No KWA staff came to complainant's house for inspection as they pleaded in the version. 2nd complainant was not cross-examined by the opposite parties. Since 2nd complainant denies all the allegations levelled against her by the opposite parties in their version, the burden of proving the pleading in the version would lay on opposite parties. No attempt was made by opposite parties to examine the officials who inspected the 2nd complainant's premises during 2000, misuse of drinking water by the complainant is not proved either by testimony of witnesses or by documentary evidence. Opposite party admitted in his version that the water supply connection to 2nd complainant's premises was disconnected on 02.11.2000. The reason for disconnection as averred in the version stands disproved. Opposite parties have to substantiate their pleadings in the version with cogent evidence. Moreover, the said disconnection was made by opposite parties without prior notice to the complainant. Ext. P1 is the photocopy of provisional invoice card, on the overleaf of which payment schedule is seen recorded by opposite parties' officials. In Ext. P1 it is recorded that opposite party had received Rs. 810/- from the 2nd complainant on 08.11.2000. Further opposite party had issued a receipt for Rs. 810/- dated 08.11.2000 to the complainant which is marked as Ext. P6. But prior to Ext. P6 no bill was seen issued by the opposite party to the 2nd complainant asking her to pay the said amount of Rs. 810/-. From this what can be inferred is that 2nd complainant was forced to remit the said amount of Rs. 810/- under the threat of disconnection. Nowhere in the version is it averred by the opposite party that 2nd complainant is a defaulter. Ext. P2 is the copy of consumer's meter card. A perusal of Ext. P2 would disclose that meter reading from 04/96 to 01/98 remained stagnant that is meter reading varied from 1507 KL to 1508 KL. On 02.01.1998, it is recorded as per Ext. P2 that water meter not working. It is recorded at the top of the consumer's meter card that, meter replaced on 20.10.1998. From 20.10.1998 to 05/99 the meter reading recorded was 161 KL and meter working. On going through Ext. P2, it would appear that average water consumption of the complainant was less than 10 KL. As per revised water tariff upto 10 KL, Rs. 2/- per KL plus service charge of Rs. 2/- has to be charged from the complainant. If that is so, complainant needs to remit minimum charge only. As per Ext. P6 opposite party had charged Rs. 810/- from the complainant without issuing bill. The action of the opposite party is illegal and improper. No evidence is seen adduced by the opposite party to substantiate their claim. Disconnection of water connection in complainant's premises is admitted by the opposite party, but without establishing the reasons by way of cogent evidence. Ext. P3 is the copy of the letter dated 03.11.2000 sent by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. P4 is the copy of the application for restoration of water connection given by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. P4 application is seen perused by officials of the opposite parties' office, but nowhere in Ext. P4 is it recorded by the officials of the opposite party about arrear amount from the complainant. On going through the evidence on record and affidavit of the complainant as well as averments in complaint and version and hearing we hold that complainant has established the allegation in the complaint and deficiency in service is proved. Opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and mental agony caused due to disconnection of water connection in complainant's premises. As per Ext. P6 receipt dated 08.11.2000, opposite party had collected Rs. 810/- from the complainant for the period from 11/98 to 11/2000. From the documents on record and consumer's meter card(Ext. P6) it appears that complainant's average water consumption per month comes to less than 10 KL. As per tariff dated 01.04.1999, upto 10 KL, for domestic purpose water charge is Rs. 2/- per KL + service charge of Rs. 2/-, which would come to Rs. 22/-. Hence complainant is liable to pay water charge of Rs. 22X24 months (from 11/98 to 11/99), that is Rs. 528/-. Complainant is not liable to pay any other charges like charge of reconnection etc. due to the negligence of the opposite party. Hence complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 282/- from the opposite parties. No material on record to show that complainant was informed by the opposite party to pay water charge at the rate of Rs. 102/- per month after the said reconnection. Due to illegal disconnection and subsequent reconnection opposite parties have to compensate the complainant by payment of Rs. 1000/-.<br /> In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall refund an amount of Rs. 282/- to the complainant. Opposite parties shall further pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- towards cost of the complaint. The said amounts shall be paid within two months from the date of this order. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 16th June 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 02/2001<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> NIL<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> P1 - Photocopy of Provisional Invoice card of Consumer No. TMA<br /> 1711. <br /> P2 - Photocopy of consumer's meter card of consumer No. TMA -1711 with date of connection 04.01.1983.<br /> P3 - Photocopy of letter dated 03.11.2000 issued by the 2nd complainant to the Assistant Executive Engineer, PTP Nagar.<br /> P4 - Photocopy of letter issued by the 2nd complainant to the 2nd opposite party for reconnection. <br /> P5 - Photocopy of letter No. CVC-440/00 dated 20.11.2000 issued by the 1st complainant to the opposite parties.<br /> P6 - Photocopy of receipt No. A 132000 dated 08.11.2000 of Rs. 810/-.<br /> P7 - Photocopy of acknowledgement cards.<br /> III OPPOSITE PARTY'S' WITNESS :<br /> NIL<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> NIL<br /> PRESIDENT