BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 297/2002 Filed on 12/07/2002 Dated: 30..03..2009
Complainant:
V. Binitha, T.C.25/2788, Ambujavilasom Road, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001.
(By Adv. S. Pradeep Kumar)
Opposite parties:
The Executive Engineer, Office of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, KWA., Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Executive Engineer, KWA., Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Engineer, Section II, KWA, Pattoor, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. C. Sasidharan Pillai)
This O.P having been heard on 16..03.2009, the Forum on 30.03..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is the owner of building bearing No. 25/2788, that complainant obtained the said building by virtue of settlement deed No.2602/1994, that complainant had effected mutation and ownership of the building was changed in her name, that the said building has water connection vide consumer No. PCH 38, that the monthly water charge was Rs.32/-, that complainant had remitted the water charges upto October 2001, that complainant was served a bill dated 31/12/2001 by the opposite parties demanding an amount of Rs. 25,113/-, and bill dated 24/6/2002 for Rs. 19,621/-, that the said bills were prepared without mentioning the meter reading and the period for which the amount claimed. By the illegal acts of the opposite parties the complainant is under great loss and hardship. Opposite parties have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint to order that opposite parties are not entitled to collect any amount from the complainant on the basis of disputed bills, to refix the water charges on the basis of average consumption of water for a period of six months, and to recover compensation and cost.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, the water meter installed in the premises was not functioning, that a new water meter was installed on 22/9/1997, and on the basis of readings bill was prepared, after on 18/1/2002 meter was not working, again a new meter was fixed on 30/1/2002, the readings were taken on the basis of the installed meter, the nature of occupancy was also changed from 11/2001 and the connection is now used for BPL service centre, and that the complainant has no right to ask for a change in the previous averages based on the present averages especially when there is a change in the nature of occupancy. It is further stated that considering the request of the complainant and the abnormal average consumption from 2/3/2001, a lenient view was taken and the complainant was allowed a 50% reduction in water charges for the period from 3/2001 to 11/2001 by waving 50% of excess consumption over the normal consumption and new bill was issued to the complainant. Complainant is bound to pay the charges as per the bill. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether opposite parties are entitled to collect the amounts as per bills dated 31/12/2001 & 24/6/2002.
Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Other reliefs and cost?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite parties filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not file any documents.
5. Points (i) to (iii) : It has been the case of the complainant, that complainant is the owner of the building bearing TC.25/2788 with water connection therein vide consumer No. PCH 38 by virtue of a settlement deed No.2602 of 1994, that the monthly water charge was Rs.32/- and that the complainant had remitted the water charge upto October 2001. It has also been the case of the complainant, that complainant was served two bills – one bill dated 30/1/2002 for Rs.25,113/- and another bill dated 24/6/2002 for Rs.19,621/- by the opposite parties without any basis. Ext. P1 is the copy of the letter addressed to 2nd opposite party requesting him to issue fresh bill on the basis of actual meter reading on replacement of water meter. Ext.P1 letter is seen issued by Smt.Saradamma.G. Ext.P2 is the copy of the receipt dated 30/1/2002 issued by the opposite party for meter replacement. Ext.P3 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 31/1/2002. As per Ext.P3, the consumer is Smt.Saradamma.G., consumer No.is PCH 38/N, consumer class is non-domestic, status– working, amount to be remitted is Rs.25,113/-, the period for which the amount claimed is not mentioned. Ext.P4 is the copy of the letter addressed to consumer No.PCH 38/N in response to the complaint dated 12/6/2002. Ext.P5 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 30/6/2002, for Rs.19,621/- issued to Saradamma. The bill is seen prepared under non-domestic consumer class. Ext.P6 is the copy of the provisional invoice card wherein the name of the consumer is G.Saradamma, category is domestic. As per payment schedule in Ext.P6, an amount of Rs.2,368/- is seen remitted on 5/11/2001 upto 10/2001. Ext.P7 is the copy of the letter dated 10/2/2000 addressed to 2nd opposite party by Saradamma, seeking permission to replace the defective water meter with new meter. On going through the Exts.P1 to P7 the water connection stands in the name of Saradamma. In her affidavit complainant claims to be the grand daughter of Saradamma and the owner of the said building. There is no material on the record to show that water connection stands in the name of the complainant nor did complainant furnish title deed concerned to establish that the premises to which consumer No.PCH 38 installed belongs to her. If complainant had effected mutation and changed ownership of the property in her name, complainant ought to have changed water connection in her name. Opposite parties, in their version has stated that, the water meter in the premises was not functioning, that a new water meter was again fixed on 30/1/2002, on the basis of which, on application filed by the complainant, the previous Forum directed opposite parties not to include the disputed bills amount of Rs.25,113/- and Rs. 19,621/- in the subsequent bills. The disputed bills are seen issued under non-domestic category. Submission by the opposite parties is that the nature of occupancy has changed from 11/2001 and the connection is now used for BPL service centre, and that the consumer has no right to ask for a change in the previous averages (which are as per the working readings) based on the present aveages especially when there is a change in the nature of occupancy. It is urged by the opposite parties that initially the bill was issued as per the readings, however, as per the request of the complainant and as per the abnormal average consumption from 2/3/2001, a lenient view was taken and the complainant was allowed a 50% reduction in water charges for the period from 3/2001 to 11/2001 by waiving 50% of excess consumption over the normal consumption. Submission by the complainant is that the meter was not working for the last several years, during the said period opposite party had fixed average monthly consumption as 139.50kl, but after the installation of new water meter the average monthly consumption is only 12kl. It is pertinent to note that complainant had filed a petition to produce the water meter reading register of the consumer No.PCH 38 by the opposite parties. Even after several opportunities were given to opposite parties, opposite parties did not furnish the same. The pleadings in the version is not seen substantiated by opposite parties by cogent and convincing evidence. Preparation of bill on the basis of presumption and assumption will definitely suffocate the complainant. The genuineness of the said bills not proved. Hence we find opposite parties are not entitled to collect the amount as per the said bills. If the meter readings were taken as per provision of the Water Supply Regulations, opposite party could send the adjusted bill in time. Non-issuance of the adjusted bill in time would amount to deficiency in service.
In the result complaint is allowed. The bills dated 31/12/2001 and 24/6/2002 (Exts. P3 & P5) issued by the opposite parties are hereby quashed. Opposite parties are at liberty to re-fix water charges and raise fresh bill on the basis of average consumption for six months as per meter readings on the newly installed meter. There will be no compensation and costs in 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 30th day of March, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.297/2002
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness : NIL II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of letter addressed to opp. Party by the complainant P2 : Photocopy of receipt No.28008 dt. 30/1/2002 P3 : Photocopy of consumer bill dt. 31/10/2002
P4 : Copy of letter dated 21/6/2002 issued to the complainant P5 : Copy of consumer bill dated 30/6/2002 of con.No.PCH/38/N P6 : Copy of provisional invoice card P7 : Copy of letter dt.10/2/2000 sent by complainant to the opp. Party.
Opposite parties witness : NIL
Opposite parties documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
ad. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 297/2002 Filed on 12/07/2002 Dated: 30..03..2009
Complainant:
V. Binitha, T.C.25/2788, Ambujavilasom Road, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001.
(By Adv. S. Pradeep Kumar)
Opposite parties:
The Executive Engineer, Office of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, KWA., Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Executive Engineer, KWA., Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Engineer, Section II, KWA, Pattoor, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. C. Sasidharan Pillai)
This O.P having been heard on 16..03.2009, the Forum on 30.03..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is the owner of building bearing No. 25/2788, that complainant obtained the said building by virtue of settlement deed No.2602/1994, that complainant had effected mutation and ownership of the building was changed in her name, that the said building has water connection vide consumer No. PCH 38, that the monthly water charge was Rs.32/-, that complainant had remitted the water charges upto October 2001, that complainant was served a bill dated 31/12/2001 by the opposite parties demanding an amount of Rs. 25,113/-, and bill dated 24/6/2002 for Rs. 19,621/-, that the said bills were prepared without mentioning the meter reading and the period for which the amount claimed. By the illegal acts of the opposite parties the complainant is under great loss and hardship. Opposite parties have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint to order that opposite parties are not entitled to collect any amount from the complainant on the basis of disputed bills, to refix the water charges on the basis of average consumption of water for a period of six months, and to recover compensation and cost.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, the water meter installed in the premises was not functioning, that a new water meter was installed on 22/9/1997, and on the basis of readings bill was prepared, after on 18/1/2002 meter was not working, again a new meter was fixed on 30/1/2002, the readings were taken on the basis of the installed meter, the nature of occupancy was also changed from 11/2001 and the connection is now used for BPL service centre, and that the complainant has no right to ask for a change in the previous averages based on the present averages especially when there is a change in the nature of occupancy. It is further stated that considering the request of the complainant and the abnormal average consumption from 2/3/2001, a lenient view was taken and the complainant was allowed a 50% reduction in water charges for the period from 3/2001 to 11/2001 by waving 50% of excess consumption over the normal consumption and new bill was issued to the complainant. Complainant is bound to pay the charges as per the bill. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether opposite parties are entitled to collect the amounts as per bills dated 31/12/2001 & 24/6/2002.
Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Other reliefs and cost?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite parties filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not file any documents.
5. Points (i) to (iii) : It has been the case of the complainant, that complainant is the owner of the building bearing TC.25/2788 with water connection therein vide consumer No. PCH 38 by virtue of a settlement deed No.2602 of 1994, that the monthly water charge was Rs.32/- and that the complainant had remitted the water charge upto October 2001. It has also been the case of the complainant, that complainant was served two bills – one bill dated 30/1/2002 for Rs.25,113/- and another bill dated 24/6/2002 for Rs.19,621/- by the opposite parties without any basis. Ext. P1 is the copy of the letter addressed to 2nd opposite party requesting him to issue fresh bill on the basis of actual meter reading on replacement of water meter. Ext.P1 letter is seen issued by Smt.Saradamma.G. Ext.P2 is the copy of the receipt dated 30/1/2002 issued by the opposite party for meter replacement. Ext.P3 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 31/1/2002. As per Ext.P3, the consumer is Smt.Saradamma.G., consumer No.is PCH 38/N, consumer class is non-domestic, status– working, amount to be remitted is Rs.25,113/-, the period for which the amount claimed is not mentioned. Ext.P4 is the copy of the letter addressed to consumer No.PCH 38/N in response to the complaint dated 12/6/2002. Ext.P5 is the copy of the consumer bill dated 30/6/2002, for Rs.19,621/- issued to Saradamma. The bill is seen prepared under non-domestic consumer class. Ext.P6 is the copy of the provisional invoice card wherein the name of the consumer is G.Saradamma, category is domestic. As per payment schedule in Ext.P6, an amount of Rs.2,368/- is seen remitted on 5/11/2001 upto 10/2001. Ext.P7 is the copy of the letter dated 10/2/2000 addressed to 2nd opposite party by Saradamma, seeking permission to replace the defective water meter with new meter. On going through the Exts.P1 to P7 the water connection stands in the name of Saradamma. In her affidavit complainant claims to be the grand daughter of Saradamma and the owner of the said building. There is no material on the record to show that water connection stands in the name of the complainant nor did complainant furnish title deed concerned to establish that the premises to which consumer No.PCH 38 installed belongs to her. If complainant had effected mutation and changed ownership of the property in her name, complainant ought to have changed water connection in her name. Opposite parties, in their version has stated that, the water meter in the premises was not functioning, that a new water meter was again fixed on 30/1/2002, on the basis of which, on application filed by the complainant, the previous Forum directed opposite parties not to include the disputed bills amount of Rs.25,113/- and Rs. 19,621/- in the subsequent bills. The disputed bills are seen issued under non-domestic category. Submission by the opposite parties is that the nature of occupancy has changed from 11/2001 and the connection is now used for BPL service centre, and that the consumer has no right to ask for a change in the previous averages (which are as per the working readings) based on the present aveages especially when there is a change in the nature of occupancy. It is urged by the opposite parties that initially the bill was issued as per the readings, however, as per the request of the complainant and as per the abnormal average consumption from 2/3/2001, a lenient view was taken and the complainant was allowed a 50% reduction in water charges for the period from 3/2001 to 11/2001 by waiving 50% of excess consumption over the normal consumption. Submission by the complainant is that the meter was not working for the last several years, during the said period opposite party had fixed average monthly consumption as 139.50kl, but after the installation of new water meter the average monthly consumption is only 12kl. It is pertinent to note that complainant had filed a petition to produce the water meter reading register of the consumer No.PCH 38 by the opposite parties. Even after several opportunities were given to opposite parties, opposite parties did not furnish the same. The pleadings in the version is not seen substantiated by opposite parties by cogent and convincing evidence. Preparation of bill on the basis of presumption and assumption will definitely suffocate the complainant. The genuineness of the said bills not proved. Hence we find opposite parties are not entitled to collect the amount as per the said bills. If the meter readings were taken as per provision of the Water Supply Regulations, opposite party could send the adjusted bill in time. Non-issuance of the adjusted bill in time would amount to deficiency in service.
In the result complaint is allowed. The bills dated 31/12/2001 and 24/6/2002 (Exts. P3 & P5) issued by the opposite parties are hereby quashed. Opposite parties are at liberty to re-fix water charges and raise fresh bill on the basis of average consumption for six months as per meter readings on the newly installed meter. There will be no compensation and costs in 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 30th day of March, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.297/2002
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness : NIL II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of letter addressed to opp. Party by the complainant P2 : Photocopy of receipt No.28008 dt. 30/1/2002 P3 : Photocopy of consumer bill dt. 31/10/2002
P4 : Copy of letter dated 21/6/2002 issued to the complainant P5 : Copy of consumer bill dated 30/6/2002 of con.No.PCH/38/N P6 : Copy of provisional invoice card P7 : Copy of letter dt.10/2/2000 sent by complainant to the opp. Party.
Opposite parties witness : NIL
Opposite parties documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | |
