IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMOSSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 18th day of November, 2021
Filed on 29.06.2019
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar.BSc. LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma. BA,LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.161/2019
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Michael Augastine 1. The Executive Engineer
S/o K.M.Augustine Kerala Water Authority
Karimbinkala, 709/VII P.H.Sub Division, Alappuzha
Thathampally Ward,
Thathampally.P.O,Alappuzha 2. The Assistant Engineer
(Adv. Sri.Aravindaghosh) Kerala Water Authority
P.H.Sub Division, Alappuzha,
(Adv. Sri. Joseph Mathew for OPs)
O R D E R
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
Brief facts of complainant’s case is as follows:-
1. The complainant’s father late Augastine was the consumer of the opposite party having consumer no. AWN/10273/D. After his death complainant filed an application before the opposite party to change the said connection in the name of the complainant. Thereafter the supply of water has been interrupted and the complainant approached the opposite party. As per the direction of the opposite party the water meter has been replaced. Further that opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 6000/- to the complainant. The request of the complainant they reduced the bill amount as Rs. 3000/- and the complainant had paid said amount. After the replacement of the water meter, the opposite party did not collect the meter reading. But on 20/3/2019 a demand cum disconnection notice for Rs. 32,183/- has been issued by 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Again on 15/5/2019 the 2nd opposite party had issued a bill for Rs. 32,685/-. In which bimonthly charge shown as Rs. 477/-. Nothing is mentioned about the remaining amount and how they were arrived such a calculation.
According to the complainant said bill was not prepared in accordance with the meter reading. So he is not at all bound to pay said bill amount. Further alleged that due to the high air pressure the water meter is rotating in a high speed which shows excess reading than consumption. Moreover opposite party failed to provide uninterrupted water supply to the complainant’s connection. Therefore he is depending upon the bore well water in his premises. The said acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Eventhough the complainant applied for change of water connection in his name, the opposite party did not take any steps for that and hence the complainant filed this complaint for seeking reliefs against the opposite parties for deficiency in service, irregularity of bills under dispute etc.
2. Opposite party filed version mainly contenting that:-
The existing water connection is in the name of complainant’s father and was issued on 15/5/2006. After his death complainant did not take any steps to change the ownership in favour of him. For that he did not file any application before this opposite parties as he alleged. Opposite parties contented that there is no interruption of water in that connection and water has been collected in their underground water tank. The existing arrear on 30/5/2015 was Rs. 9340/- . As per the request of the complainant, allowed him to pay the amount by way of installment and he paid first installment of Rs.3000/- towards the arrear bill. But he did not pay the remaining balance. After replaced the water meter on 30/5/2015 the meter reader is regularly collecting the meter reading from 24/7/2015 onwards and issued bimonthly water bill to the complainant without any fail and the contrary allegation made by the complainant is not true. Therefore, opposite parties forced to issue demand cum disconnection notice as per the water supply Rules and Regulations. The bill on 15/5/2019 showed the earlier arrear and bimonthly consumption charge upto February 2019 comes at Rs. 32,194/-, bimonthly consumption charge of water during the period of March/April is Rs. 477/-, inspection charge Rs.4, Fine Rs.10 and total amounting as Rs.32,685/-. But the arrear of Rs. 32,809/- upto August 2019 is still unpaid. Hence this complaint is not having any merit and same is to be dismissed.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 were marked. RW1 was examined on behalf of opposite parties. Thereafter we have heard both sides.
4. The points that arose for determination are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the opposite parties?
2. Compensation and cost if any?
3. Reliefs?
5. Point Nos. 1 and 2:-
Admittedly the water connection is still in the name of Augustine, he is none other than the father of complainant. It seems that the complainant being the beneficiary can be treated as consumer within the scope of Consumer Protection Act. Ext.A1 is the disconnection notice dated 20/3/2019. In which shown the arrear is Rs.32,183/- the same is not a detailed bill. Ext.A2 dtd. 15/5/2019 is another demand cum disconnection notice. As per said bill the arrear is Rs. 32,685/-. In which mentioned the details of calculation. Ext.A3 is the copy of death certificate of the consumer, complainant’s father. Ext.A4 is the copy of deed infavour of the complainant. It is no doubt that the complainant is the beneficiary of said water supply provided by the opposite parties in AWN/10273/D. The complainant alleged that after his father’s death he approached the 1st opposite party to change the water connection infavour of him. But they were avoiding his request. Secondly opposite party did not provide uninterrupted water supply to his connection. Further that after the installation of new meter opposite parties issued bill for Rs. 6000/- to the complainant. Thereafter reduced the said amount as Rs.3000/- and he paid said Rs. 3000/- to the opposite party. The Ext.A1 and A2 are not based on meter reading collected by the meter reader.
Admittedly opposite parties issued arrear bills including the arrear before 30/5/2015 and current water charges up to August 2019. Seemingly Ext.A1 bill is not supported with sufficient datas as to show how they were arrived the calculation of the amount charged. Hence assessing the evidence as a whole we are of the view that Ext.A1 bill dtd. 20/3/2019 is not valid in the eye of law since it is not supported by relevant datas regarding the usage of water. Both bills, Ext.A1 and A2 are issued in 2019 in which opposite parties demanded the existing arrear beyond 30/5/2015. However , it is admitted that installment was allowed and some amount was paid on 30/5/2015 the remaining arrear is existing. It is not known how the opposite parties can collect amount prior to 3 years. In other words it appears that water authority had lost sight of limitation Act which clearly barred due to 3 years. Admittedly the arrears claimed prior to 30/5/2015 which is hit by limitation and so complainant is entitled to get an order to set aside Ext.A1 and A2 bills. However this order will not bar for issuing fresh bill and collect the amount legally entitled by the opposite party. The facts and circumstances of the case we are refrain from ordering compensation.
Further the complainant is directed to submit application for change of consumer’s name, in the disputed water connection to the opposite parties. Accordingly the opposite party has to take necessary action for change of name in the concerned register in favour of the complainant.
In the above circumstances we found that opposite parties push the complainant into an unnecessary litigation. Hence the complainant is entitled to get cost of the proceedings from the opposite parties.
6. Point No.2:-
In the result the complaint stands allowed in part as follows:-
1) Ext.A1 dtd. 20/3/2019 disconnection Notice No.5113 and Ext.A2 Demand cum disconnection notice dtd. 15/5/2019 notice no.47873699 hereby set aside and opposite party shall issue fresh bill as per the law.
2) The complainant is directed to file application before the opposite parties to change the consumer name infavour of him and in that event opposite party is directed to take necessary steps accordingly.
3) The opposite party shall pay Rs.3000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 18th day of November, 2021.
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Michael Augustine(Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Disconnection Notice dtd. 20/3/2019
Ext.A2 - Demand cum Disconnection Notice dtd.15/5/2019
Ext.A3 - Copy of Death Certificate
Ext.A4 - Copy of Deed.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Bruno.V.D
//True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
