IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of April, 2011
Filed on 25.09.10
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.234/10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt.Vijayalekshmi.S, 1. The Executive Engineer,
Ushas (Puthenpura), Kerala Water Authority, Alappuzha.
H.No.627A/12,
Karumadi. 2. The Asst. Executive Engineer, P.H.Sub Division,
(By Adv.H.Hamsa Rawther) Kerala water Authority, Vazhycherry Jn., Alappuzha.
3. The Asst. Engineer, P.H.Sub Division,
Kerala Water Authority Vazhycherry Jn., Alappuzha.
(By Adv.S.Naushad)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant in succinct is as follows: - The complainant is the consumer of the opposite party. The consumer number of the opposite party is KMD/417. The complainant resides with her 8 years old daughter in the residential structure wherein the aforesaid water connection exists. The complainant has been consuming least amount of water. The monthly water charge of the complainant was Rs.28/- (Rupees twenty eight only). Meanwhile, the opposite party issued to the complainant a demand notice dated, 20th September 2010 calling upon her to remit Rs.23,101/-(Rupees twenty three thousand one hundred and one only) for the period spreading from 1st April 2009 to August 2010. The demand notice is extremely implausible. The complainant could never have consumed such an exorbitant quantity of water to have imposed the aforesaid water charge. The complainant lodged a complaint with the opposite party as to the defect of the water meter in the complainant premise. The opposite party was disinclined to look into the complainant's grievance. Instead, the opposite party intimidated the complainant of disconnection of the water service. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being sent, the opposite parties turned up, and filed version. The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant had been consuming an average quantity of 49.5KL water every month. As such the complainant had to remit Rs.l52/-(Rupees one hundred and fifty two only) every month. But the complainant was paying only an amount of Rs.28/- (Rupees twenty eight only). Thus, the water charge has been falling in arrears all along for several years, the opposite parties contend. The complaint is filed without any bonafides. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.
2. The complainant's evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant herself as PW1, and the documents Exbts Al to A6 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, the Assistant Executive Engineer was examined as RW1, and the document was marked as Exbt B1.
3. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the complainant is liable to remit the amount as alleged by the opposite party?
(2) Compensation and cost?
4. Concededly, the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. On a plain perusal itself, it appears that the version advanced by the opposite party is ambiguous and vague. The opposite party arrived on the conclusion that the complainant had been using 49.5KL water per month without sufficient materials. It is to be borne in mind that the meter reading is to be taken in every six months. Strangely enough, the opposite party has no consistent case as to which ever time the reading was examined. No material worth a scrap of paper is forthcoming to prove that the opposite parties took meter reading prior to the issuance of the demand notice in question. We made an anxious scrutiny of the complaint, version and the allied evidence brought on record by the parties. On a plain perusal of the materials brought on record 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 on has no sufficient materials to support or substantiate the same. Going by Ext. A2, it is clear that the monthly water charge levied by the opposite parties is Rs.28/- (Rupees twenty eight only). The specific contention of the complainant is that the complainant has been residing with her only child in her house, and as such there arise no such occasion to consume huge amount of water as alleged by the opposite parties. To fortify the said contention, the complainant duly produces Ext. A5 which is sufficiently suggestive of the same. Needless to say, the case advanced by the complainant stands sufficiently substantiated, more particularly so in as much as the complainant produced Exts. Al and A5. We hold that the issuance of demand notice by the opposite parties, apparently appears strange rather unauthorized. We are of the strong view that in as much as the opposite party, without any requisite basis issued notice to the complainant claiming a huge amount as arrears of water charge, the service of the opposite party is deficient. No doubt, the complainant is entitled to relief.
In the light of the aforesaid facts and findings, we hold that Ext. A1 demand notice issued to the complainant by the opposite parties is void, and as such the same stands cancelled. We further hold that the opposite party is entitled to obtain from the complainant the water charge of Rs.28/-(Rupees twenty eight only) per month if the same is not so remitted.
In the result the complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of April, 2011.
. Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Vijayalekshmi.S (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The copy of the Consumer Bill dated, 20.09.2010
Ext. A2 - The copy of the Kerala Water Authority Provisional Invoice Card
Ext. A3 - The copy of the Kerala Water Authority Receipt dated, 02.08.2007 (2Nos.)
Ext. A4 - The complaint issued to the 2nd opposite party dated, 17.12.2008
Ext. A5 - The copy of the Ration Card - No.1418095911
Ext. A6 - The letter issued to the 2nd opposite party dated, 13.12.2010
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - B.Jayaprasad (Witness)
Ext. B1 - The copy of the Consumer Ledger and Demand details
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
