BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 22/10/2010
Date of Order : 31/01/2012
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 563/2010
Between
Baby Mathew, | :: | Complainant |
39/3623, Amigo House, Thoundayil Road, Near South Over Bridge, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi – 36. |
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661) |
And
1. The Managing Director, | :: | Opposite Parties |
Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Works Sub- Division , Palllimukku, Kochi – 682 016. |
| (Op.pts. by Adv. Jeemon John, M.D.V., Complex. Opp. L.F. Hospital, Angamaly) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :-
The complainant had rented out a room having availed herself of a water connection to the room under non-domestic category. The average bimonthly consumption was 10 units. In July 2008, the water meter became defunct. The water charges till April 2009 were remitted on 18-04-2009. May 2009 onwards, the meter started recording exorbitant reading. On 01-08-2009, the complainant caused a letter to the opposite parties requesting replacement of the meter. At the request of the complainant, the meter was tested on 30-09-2009 and error was noticed. However, the opposite party refused to replace the meter and issued an arrear bill to the tune of Rs. 37,000/- on the basis of the reading in the defective meter. In the mean time, the opposite parties issued a notice dated 13-10-2010 and disconnected the supply on 14-10-2010. The opposite parties are liable to fix the average consumption for the period during the meter was defective on the basis of a defect free meter. Thus, the complainant is before us to get the disputed bill set aside and to get the water connection resumed. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite parties :-
The complainant has remitted the water charges upto February 2009 in 18-04-2009. Though the meter was working properly. the complainant submitted a complaint dated 01-08-2009 alleging over running of the meter. The meter was tested on 30-09-2009 and found correct. As per the direction of this Forum, the 2nd opposite party reconnected the disconnected connection on 02-11-2010 and received a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The complainant was also permitted to replace the defective meter. The consumption of water by the complainant as per the old meter was correct. The average consumption for the disputed period can be calculated by taking long average of consumption and the total amount to be remitted by the complainant would be Rs. 9,730/-. The complainant is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
3. The complainant did not mount the box to adduce oral evidence for reasons of her own. Exts. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the complainant. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are :-
whether the complainant is entitled to get the water connection reconnected?
Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the impugned arrear bill?
5. Point No. i. :- During the proceedings in this Forum, at the instance of the complainant vide order in I.A. No. 585/2010 dated 23-10-2010, the opposite party reconnected the water connection and the complainant remitted a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with the opposite party. Since the water connection of the complainant was reconnected, further discussion on this point is not at all warranted.
6. Admittedly, as per the request of the complainant the previous meter was tested by the opposite party and Ext. A4 is the test report as per the report +5 is the normal reading. However, out of the 5 water charge bills in Ext. A1 series (7 in Nos.) and Exts. A7 and A8 go to show the status of the water meter as 'not working'. So the plea of the opposite party is totally unsustainable, since the grounds by the complainant are uncontroverted. Moreover, nothing is forthcoming on the part of the opposite parties to explain the above anomaly in the water charge bills. It is pertinent to note that neither parties did take steps to produce the meter reading register or consumer ledger pertaining to the water connection of the complainant which raises assumptions. Since the actual consumption of water is not before the Forum having been failed to be produced by either parties, the only option before us is to direct the opposite party to issue a fresh bill retrospectively on the basis of the replaced water meter under Regulation 13 and 7 of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations 1991. This above, we feel would meet the ends of justice. Indisputably, the water meter was replaced on 02-11-2010.
7. Accordingly, we allow the complaint in part and direct as follows :
We set aside Ext. A8 the impugned bill.
The opposite parties shall jointly and severally issue a fresh bill for the disputed period retrospectively on the basis of the reading in the fresh water meter under Regulation 13 and 7 of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations 1991 as directed above.
The opposite parties shall adjust the remittances if any, made by the complainant.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of January 2012.
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 series | :: | Copy of consumer bills (7 Nos.) |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 01-08-2009 |
“ A3 | :: | Copy of the receipt dt. 24-09-2009 |
“ A4 | :: | Copy of the test certificate dt. 30-09-2009 |
“ A5 | :: | Copy of new meter test certificate |
“ A6 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 15-10-2008 |
“ A7 | :: | Copy of the consumer bill dt. 30-06-2010 |
“ A8 | :: | Copy of the consumer bill dt. 31-08-2010 |
“ A9 | :: | Copy of the disconnection advice dt. 13-10-2010 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
=========
