CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2016
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing:28/05/2016
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/73/2016
K.C.Chacko,
S/o.Chacko, : Complainant
Kadaplakkal House,
House No.2/628,
Neelikkad, Olavakkode,
Palakkad Pin 678 002.
(By Adv.T.P.George and K.Dhananjayan)
Vs
- The Kerala Water Authority,
-
- The Kerala Water Authority,
Rep.by its Managing Director/
Chairman, : Opposite Parties
Head Office at
Thiruvananthapuram.
3.The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer,
The Kerala Water Authority Kalmandapam,
Palakkad.
O R D E R
By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
Brief facts of the Case.
The complainant is permanently residing in the address shown in the cause title and the offices are functioning in the addresses shown in the cause title.
The complainant is a subscriber and consumer of opposite parties 1-3. He has got a domestic water connection in his house bearing consumer No.3227/D from 1972 onwards. The complainant was using the said connection till 1992. Although he was having domestic water connection of opposite parties, little water was available to meet his needs since 1985. After that the volume and flow of water became scarce and that was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the complainant’s family. The complainant has then made complaints to the opposite parties several times but no response was obtained from opposite parties. Ultimately, when the water connection for which it was taken has proved to be insufficient and useless, he has ordered the opposite parties to disconnect the domestic water supply connection. The opposite parties have disconnected the domestic water supply connection of the complainant in 1992. Thereafter the complainant has never used a single drop of water supplied by the opposite party. He uses the water from a well situated in his compound.
At the time of disconnection of the above mentioned domestic water connection in 1992, there was no amount due to opposite parties from the complainant. After the said disconnection the complainant believed that all issues in connection with the water connection ended and he was leading a peaceful life thereafter.
Surprisingly 3rd opposite party issued a bill to the complainant to pay Rs.20888/-on 14.3.2016. The bill bears No.17239162 dated 08.03.2016. In the said bill it was stated that the bill amount should be paid without fail on or before 21.04.2016. The bill was issued by the 3rd opposite party for and on behalf of opposite parties 1&2 in violation of all rules, regulations and laws existing connected with the subject. According to the complainant since the disconnection of the domestic water connection the complainant is not liable to pay any amount including the amount stated as per the bill. Hence the bill issued by the opposite parties and the amount of Rs.20888/-was non existing and was not having any factual or legal basis and was devoid of truth. The amount of Rs.20888/-mentioned in the bill was non recoverable. By issuing such a bill the opposite parties have committed a glaring and manifest deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Since the disconnection in 1992, 24 years are over and it is perhaps known only to the knowledge of the officials of the opposite party no.3.
As soon as the complainant has received the aforesaid bill, he himself has made a representation to the 3rd opposite party stating the true facts and to cancel the bill. Though the opposite parties received the representation of the complainant, they have not considered the request of the complainant and not rectified their mistakes and deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence in order to redress his grievance and to get justice the complainant has approached the Hon’ble Forum seeking the following reliefs against the opposite parties.
The complainant is legally entitled to get an order from the Hon’ble Forum ordering that 1.The amount of Rs.20888/-alleged by the opposite parties as per bill No. 17239162 is non recoverable and its issuance is unjustifiable because it is the result of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and fraud.
2. To order all opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/-as exemplary damages for the most gruesome torts committed by them.
3. To pay cost of this litigation
4.To grand any other ad interim reliefs to the complainant during the pendency of this case and this Hon’ble Forum finding fit to grant in the interest of justice.
The cause of action for this complaint arose on and after 14/3/2016 when the 3rd opposite party issued a bill bearing No.17239162 for Rs.20888/-for and on behalf of the opposite parties and later on 6.4.2016 when the complainant has made a representation to the 3rd opposite party to cancel the bill and when the opposite parties considered the request of the complainant and rectified their mistakes and thus they have committed deficiency of service. The complainant has availed the connection of the opposite parties and the disputed bill has been issued by the 3rd opposite party. 3rd opposite party has branch office at Kalmandapam, Palakkad and where they have committed deficiency of service which is well within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum and this Hon’ble Forum is empowered to entertain his complaint and to try this case.
It is most respectfully prayed to the Hon’ble Forum to admit the complaint filed, issue notice to opposite parties , to order that the amount of Rs.20888/-alleged by opposite parties as per bill no.17239162 which is due from the complainant is non recoverable and its issuance is unjustifiable because it is the result of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and fraud, to order all opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/-as exemplary damages, to direct the opposite parties to pay the entire cost of this litigation to the complainant and to order any other ad-interim reliefs which the Hon’ble Forum deems fit to grand in the interest of justice.
Complainant was admitted and notices were issued to opposite parties.
In their versions filed by opposite parties 2&3, they denied all the statements made in the complaint. The complaint is not factually and lawfully tenable.
The opposite parties contend that there is ambiguity regarding the disconnection of water connection No.PKD/3227/D in the computerized personal ledger.
The matters mentioned in the complaint are entirely false. Water connection No-PKD/3227/D was not disconnected in 1992. As per the records of the opposite party, in 2015 already disconnected is seen. If the complainant claims that in 1992 connection was disconnected, in order to prove that, application in the prescribed form should be filed along with documents for payment of disconnection fees. In this case, to show that complainant’s water connection was disconnected in 1992, no documents were produced. If the connection was disconnected by Kerala Water Authorities that date would be recorded in the personal register and then coming water charges would be avoided. In this case these things did not happen. As per the manual consumer personal register, on this connection amount payable by the complainant is as shown below.
The same meter reading on 02.06.1995 was also seen on 07.01.1997. “not using” was also recorded. Up to 1/2002 arrear amount was calculated as Rs.2785(Rupees Two thousand seven hundred and eighty five only). Regarding the disconnection date, since other clear records were not available and in 1/1997 ”not using” was recorded, arrears calculation date (01/2002) was considered as disconnection date, arrears up to that date Rs.2785/-(Rupees Two thousand seven hundred and eighty five only) and fine on this up to now Rs.820/-(Rupees eight hundred twenty only), totaling Rs.3605/-(Rupees Three thousand six hundred and five only). It is requested by the opposite parties to the Hon’ble Forum to order the complainant to remit above mentioned amount of Rs.3605/- (Rupees Three thousand six hundred and five only).
Emergent IA 241/16 was filed for interim injunction against 3rd opposite party from collecting and recovering alleged bill amount of Rs.20888/-. Considering the emergency of the case, emergent notice was issued to 3rd opposite party in IA. Complainant filed chief affidavit and opposite party also filed affidavit. Exts.A1&A2 were marked from the side of the complainant. No documents were filed by opposite parties. The complainant was heard.
The following issues arise in this case.
- Whether there is any negligence/deficiency of service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- If so, what is the relief?
Issues 1&2
In this case complainant is a subscriber and the consumer of opposite parties 1to 3. He has got a domestic water connection in his house bearing consumer No. PKD/3227/D from 1972 onwards. The complainant was using the said water connection till 1992. After 1985, since the volume and flow of water became scarce and insufficient to meet the requirements of the complainant’s family, after complaining several times about this and getting no response from the opposite parties, the complainant ordered the opposite parties to disconnect the domestic water supply connection. There after (after disconnection in 1992) the complainant has never used a single drop of water supplied by the opposite party. At the time of disconnection no amount was due by the complainant to opposite parties.
Surprisingly the 3rd opposite party issued a bill to the complainant marked as Ext.A1 which shows various particulars namely total amount payable Rs.20888/-(Rupees twenty thousand eight hundred and eighty eight only); arrears-Rs.20878/-(Rupees twenty thousand eight hundred and seventy eight only) ; Fine-Rs.10/-(Rupees ten only); Last date without fine 6/4/2016; . Bill no:17239162, bill date 8 /3/2016.
As soon as the complainant has received the above mentioned bill marked as Ext.A1, in order to avoid a litigation he has made a representation to the 3rd opposite party stating the true facts and also requiring to cancel the bill. This representation by the complainant to 3rd opposite party is marked as Ext.A2.
Although the opposite parties have received the representation of the complainant they have not considered the request of the complainant and rectified their mistakes.
From the above it is clear to the forum that the opposite parties have committed a gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice because although the disconnection of the complainant’s domestic water connection was made as early as 1992, the bill was issued only on 08/3/2016. Moreover for the water not used by the complainant consumer, he was levied highly excessive charge of Rs.20888/-which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
Therefore the complaint is allowed.
We hear by order the opposite parties to cancel the excess bill issued by them to the complainant. Further we order that exemplary damages of Rs.15000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) should also be paid to the complainant; in addition, litigation costs of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) incurred by the complainant should be paid to him.
The Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise interest at 9% per annum on the total amount due should also be paid from the date of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 21st day of December 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/- Suma. K.P Member
Sd/- V.P.Anantha Narayanan Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- Water authority bill on 8/3/ 2016
Ext.A2 –copy of the representation made by the complainant to 3rd opposite party
dated 6.4.2016
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs.3000/-as cost
