BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 23/03/2010
Date of Order : 22/09/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 181/2010
Between
Anil Thomas, | :: | Complainant |
Chakaravelil House, Palakuzha. P.O., Muvattupuzha. |
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha) |
And
1. The Managing Director, | :: | Opposite parties |
Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Sub-Division, Muvattupuzha. |
| (Op.pts. by Adv. Jeemon John, M.D.V. Complex, Opp. L.F. Hospital, Angamaly – 683 572) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The case of the complainant is as follows :
The late grandmother of the complainant is the domestic category consumer under the 2nd opposite party. After her death, the complainant became the owner of the premises owned by her and so the beneficiary of the water connection. The complainant has been remitting the monthly charges promptly. His consumption never exceeded the PIC limit permitted by the opposite parties. While so, when the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for remitting monthly charge, he was asked to pay Rs. 12,304/- towards arrears. Since the complainant's consumption has been lesser than the allotted PIC consumption, he submitted application for meter testing and withdrawal of the demand. Accordingly, the meter was tested and it was found that the display of excess consumption is due to fault of the meter. But instead of withdrawing the demand, demand/disconnection notice for Rs. 11,504/- dated 10-03-2010 was issued to the complainant. The complainant is not liable to pay the bill for Rs. 11,504/-, since he had not consumed water more than the allotted PIC limit. The complainant is having two wells and a jalanidhi storage tank in his premises. So, the use of the water supply from the opposite parties is very less. This complaint hence.
2. Version of the opposite party :
The owner of the disputed water connection is Smt. Mariamma Mathai, Chakravelil House, Palakuzha. An arrear bill for Rs. 12,304/- was issued to the consumer which includes Rs. 11,499/- bill for additional consumption from 24-01-2005 to 08-05-2009. Consequent to the additional consumption of water, water charge was raised to Rs. 480/- per month from Rs. 85/- per month. The complainant submitted a petition on 14-10-2009 requesting to reconsider the bill. On inspection, it was found that the meter is a damaged one. A new water meter was installed and the present water charge is only Rs. 22/- per month. The complainant is liable to pay the previous dues to the opposite parties.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1 to A3 and B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite parties respectively. Ext. X1 also was marked. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are :-
Whether the complainant is a consumer?
Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the impugned bill?
Costs of the proceedings?
5. Point No. i. :- Beneficiary of services is a consumer as per Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. So the contention of the opposite party fails.
6. Point No. ii. :- At the instance of the complainant vide order in I.A. No. 133/2010 dated 20-03-2010, this Forum directed the 2nd opposite party to refrain from effecting disconnection of the disputed water connection till disposal of the complaint. Ext. B1 is the consumer ledger of the complainant. The consumption of water as per Ext. B1 is as follows :
Reading Date Meter Reading
11-11-2000 178
10-09-2002 586
29-05-2004 1061
24-07-2004 1095
24-01-2005 1291
08-05-2009 3963
06-11-2009 1
15-12-2009 2
20-02-2010 11
Whereas, the consumption of water as per Ext. X1 consumer personal ledger is as follows :
Reading Date Meter Reading
5/2004 1095
25-08-2005 1603
12-12-2007 2459
15-12-2009 2
20-02-2010 11
25-02-2010 11
18-03-2010 12
23-07-2010 27
The consumption of water as per Ext. B1 and X1 are distinctly different having no nexus as to the consumption. The arrear bill issued on the basis of the above documents is seemingly unsuitable. However, we have only to hold that the impugned bill which is wrong, cannot be sustained.
7. Not to perpetuate, we direct the opposite party to issue a fresh bill to the complainant for the disputed period on the basis of 6 months reading in the fresh water.
8. In the result, we pass the following order :
We set aside Ext. A1 bill dated 10-03-2010.
The 2nd opposite party shall issue a fresh bill under Regulations 13 and 17 of the Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations 1991 for the disputed period on the basis of the reading in the new water meter.
The order in I.A. 133/2010 dated 20-03-2010 is made absolute.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 22nd day of September 2011.
Forwarded/By Order, Sd/-A. Rajesh,President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of demand/disconnection notice dt. 10-03-2010 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of provisional invoice card |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the receipt dt. 06-11-2009 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :-
Exhibit B1 | :: | Copy of the consumer ledger |
“ B2 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 14-10-2009 |
“ X1 | :: | Copy of the meter reading care |
=========
Date of Despatch of this Order ::
By Post ::
By hand ::
