BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C.No. 333/2004 Filed on 25/08/2004
Dated: 31..03..2011
Complainant:
K.P. Kosala Ramdas, T.C. 11/1245, Nanthencode, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. T.L. Sreeram)
Opposite parties:
Kerala Water Authority, Represented by its Managing Director, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kowdiar Section, KWA., Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram.
The Assistant Engineer, Kowdiar Section, KWA., Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram.
The Assistant Engineer, Water Works Headquarters Section, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Santhamma Thomas)
This O.P having been heard on 21..02..2011, the Forum on 31..03..2011 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. KDR/2116/D, that the monthly amount was fixed as Rs.70/-, that his place of residence is situated geographically in high altitude compared to other places in Thiruvananthapuram City, thereby during day time there was no water supply because of low pressure of water, that complainant used to remit the water charges without any default irrespective of the proper supply of water, that on 19/2/2003 complainant had remitted an amount of Rs. 944/- towards water charges for the period from 1/2003 to 1/2004, that on 9/1/2004 he was served with a bill for Rs. 11,841/- for the period from 5/2003 to 12/2003 showing dues upto 4/2003, that complainant made several enquiries with the opposite parties and on all occasions he was assured by the opposite parties that the matter will be looked into and his grievance will be redressed at the earliest, but no action was taken by opposite parties, that complainant made a written request on 17/2/2004 to opposite parties demanding them to test the water meter as it was faulty, that again on 7/4/2004 and 26/6/2004 two bills were issued for Rs. 13,281/- and Rs. 14,241/- respectively, that opposite parties are not entitled to realise the money as per the said impugned bills, that the action of the opposite parties are arbitrary, illegal which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to cancel the bills and pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation along with cost.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending inter alia that the connection allotted to the complainant was under domestic catgegory, but later the said connection has been used for non-domestic purposes, that an office called India China Friendship Association is functioning in the premises, that the averments to para 2 to 4 of the complaint are false, that on 19/2/2003 complainant had paid Rs. 944/- as water charges, that complainant's water meter was not functioning before April 1999, thereafter water meter was replaced and PIC rates were fixed as Rs. 76/- per month, that the said meter worked upto February 2003, that from 19/2/2003 the meter is not working and the complainant has not taken any steps to replace the meter, that the bills were issued as per regulations of water supply, that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as stated in the complaint. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bills dated 9/01/2004, 7/4/2004 and 26/06/2004 cancelled?
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
Whether complainant is entitled to compensation and cost?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P4. In rebuttal, 2nd opposite party has filed affidavit and a computer print out of the consumer ledger.
4. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, complainant is a consusmer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. KDR/2116/D. It has been the case of the complainant that his place of residence is situated geographically in high altitude thereby during day time there will be no water supply because of low pressure of water. It has also been the case of the complainant that he used to remit the water charge without any default irrespective of proper supply of water, that he had remitted water charge upto 1/2004. It has also been the case of the complainant that on 9/1/2004 opposite party had issued a bill for Rs. 11,841/- towards water charges for the period from 5/2003 to 12/2003 showing dues upto 4/2003. It has also been the case of the complainant that he was served with two bills again on 7/4/2004 and 26/6/2004 for Rs. 13,281/- and Rs. 14,241/- respectively. It has also been contended by the complainant that the water meter is faulty. Complainant's evidence consists of his oral testimony and Exts. P1 to P4. Ext. P1 is the copy of the receipt dated 19/2/2003 for Rs. 944/- issued by opposite parties towards water charges for the period from 1/2003 to 1/2004. Ext. P2 is the copy of the bill dated 9/1/2004 for Rs. 11,841/-. On perusal of Ext. P2 it is seen that the said connection is under domestic category, meter status is 'working', previous meter reading (3..11..2002), present meter reading (19..02..2003) and consumption etc.. are recorded in Ext. P2. Further average consumption is recorded as 89.9kl, water charges for the period from 5/2003 to 12/2003 is Rs.3,401/-, dues upto 4/2003 comes to Rs. 8,440/-. Ext. P3 is the copy of the bill dated 7/4/2004 wherein connection is categorised as domestic, meter status recorded as 'not clear' and data regarding previous reading, present reading, consumption etc...are not recorded, while average consumption is 89.9kl. Ext. P4 is the copy of the bill dated 26/6/2004 wherein meter status is 'not clear', connection is under domestic category, the data regarding previous reading, present reading and consumption are not recorded, while average consumption is 89.9kl. It has been contended by the complainant that opposite party was issued bills solely due to the faulty meter. Complainant has not been cross examined by the opposite parties thereby the affidavit filed by the complainant remains uncontroverted. Opposite party has filed affidavit stating that complainant was using water supplied by the opposite parties and consumer had not paid arrears in time, meter was working upto 2/2003 thereafter readings are not clear. It is to be noted that as per Exts. P2 to P4 bills, the connection is categorised under domestic, while it is averred in the version and affidavit by opposite parties that connection is to be converted to Non-domestic category. Opposite party has not furnished any material informing the complainant that the said connection is under non-domestic category. At the same time it is to be noted that complainant has not denied the statement of the opposite parties in the version that an office called India China Friendship Association is seen working in the premises. Further, as per Exts. P2 to P4, tariff is not seen converted to non-domestic. Further, tariff conversion is not an issue herein. Herein we need to look at the genuiness of the bill. On perusal of Exts. P3 & P4 it is seen the status of meter 'not clear' and hence no meter reading recorded while in Ext. P2, status of meter is as working and hence meter reading recorded. It is to be noted as per Ext. P2 that though the previous reading date recorded is on 3/11/2002 and the date of present reading recorded is on 19/2/2003. Ext. P1 is seen billed on 9/1/2004, that is after 9 months from the last reading date. Normally, had opposite party taken meter reading on 19/2/2003, opposite party would have definitely issued bills immediately thereafter. The reason for delay in issuance of bill is yet to disclose. A perusl of Ext. P1 will reveal that consumption of water after 19/2/2003 was assessed by opposite parties on presumption. That is water charges assessed from 19/2/2003 to 7/2004 vide Exts. P2 to P4 is fully on the basis of assumed consumption. Further, as on 19/2/2003 status of water meter is 'working', but thereafter, the status of meter is as 'not clear'. Further it is argued by the complainant that he made a written request to the opposite parties demanding them to test the water meter, as it is faulty one. It is admitted by opposite parties that the water charges calculated based on the readings of the working period, while in the same breath, opposite party has deposed that the bill issued was as per actual consumption. Opposite parties' statement itself is contradictory. Since meter status recorded as 'not clear' and bill has not been issued as per actual consumption, Exts. P2 to P4 bills issued to complainant appear to be not genuine. Further, as per Ext. P2 the dues upto 4/2003 is Rs.8,440/- but it is not made clear therein from which date onwards water charge fell due. Taking the overall situation, we deem that the bills Exts. P2 to P4 issued by opposite parties deserves to be cancelled. Had opposite parties taken meter reading as per regulations and issued bills accordingly, this type of problems would never occur. Further opposite party has furnished the computer printout of the consumer ledger. A perusal of the consumer ledger reveals that there was no uniform pattern of consumption. Consumption monthly varied from 28kl (PIC) on 6/94 to 28kl on 4/99 which rose to 68.3kl on 9/99 which fell to 48.5kl on 6/2002 which rose to 61.5kl on 11/2002 which rose to 89.9kl on 2/2003. Exts. P2 to P3 are seen raised on the basis of 89.9kl. Further meter reading as on 29/4/99 was 'zero' as per consumer ledger which rose to 2678kl as on 19/2/2003 that is total consumption of water as per ledger is 2678kl for 46 months (4/99 to 2/2003) that is consumption per monthly would come around 58kl. As per register, no meter reading recorded from 19/2/2003 onwards. Computer print out is seen dated 29/1/2005. Taking the overall situation, we deem that justice will be well met if complainant is directed to pay water charge at the rate of 50kl per month from 4/99 to 6/2004 under domestic category.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The bills dated 9/1/2004, 26/6/2004 and 7/4/2004 (Exts. P2 to P4) issued by opposite parties are cancelled. Opposite parties shall raise fresh bill on the basis of 50kl per month from 4/99 to 6/2004 under domestic category after adjusting the amount if any remitted by the complainant during the said period. In facts and circumstance of the case, there will be no compensation. Parties shall bear and suffer their costs.
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 31st day of March, 2011.
G. SIVAPRASAD,
PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI .A,
MEMBER.
S.K. SREELA,
MEMBER .
ad.
O.P.No: 333/2004
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Kosala Ramdas
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of the receipt dated 19/2/2003 for Rs.944/- issued by opposite party.
P2 : " bill dated 9/01/2004 for Rs.11,841/-.
P3 : " bill dated 7/04/2004
P4 : " bill dated 26/06/2004
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
