IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 14th day of March , 2017.
Filed on 09.03.2016
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George, President
2. Sri. Antony Xavier( Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No 76/2016
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
The Secretary 1. The Managing Director
Saukar Masjid Committee Kerala Water Authority
New Bazaar, Alappuzha Jala Bhavan , Trivandrum
(Adv. Azeem muhammed)
2. The Executive Engineer
Kerala Water Authority
Vazhichery Junction
Alappuzha.
(Adv. Joseph Mathew)
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant case in succinct is as follows:-
The complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties holding consumer No. 5125. Previously the consumer number of the complainant was 4925 which stood in the name of Suleiman Hassan. After the death of Suleiman Hassan the committee had taken charge and on a letter being issued to the opposite parties on 8th January 1992, the bill had been issued till July 2001 in the name of the Secretary of the complainant firm. In the bill so issued no meter reading had been noted. The complainant paid off all those bill amounts duly However after July 2001, no bill had been issued. When matters stood thus the opposite parties issued a bill dated 16th September 2015 for an amount of Rs.2,29,965/- to the complainant having the old consumer number 4925 and the name of deceased Sulaiman Hasan. On receiving the said bill the complainant issued a notice to the opposite parties requesting the statements of both the consumer number for which the opposite parties made no sort of response till date. Thereafter on 23rd November 2015 another bill dated 19th November 2015 for an amount of Rs. 2,4,0501 was issued. Upon the complainant sent a registered reminder which also yielded any result. Over again the opposite parties issued another bill dated 20th January 2016 for an amount of Rs. 251463/-. This time to the complainant sent a reminder which also met with the prior fate. In the bill so issued for the first time, it was stated that the connection is not working”. The opposite parties issued bills demanding exorbitant amount. The opposite parties were always keen on not making any response to the complainant’s repeated letters. Even after the institution of the instant complaint, the opposite parties issued bill demanding huge amount without any basis. The opposite parties committed deficiency of service. The complainant sustained agony and harassment. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notice served, the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite parties contention is that the connection bearing Number AWS4925/N originally belonged to Alleppy Municipality which was later transferred to Kerala Water Authority. The connection belongs to Mosque 770 stands in the name Suliaman Hassan. According to the opposite parties after July 2002, the complainant has not paid off any water charge. According to the opposite parties Consumer Number AWS5125 belongs to another mosque bearing Number 910, and as such the consumer Number 5125 does not belong to the complainant. The water connection bearing 4925 is the actual water connection of the complainant. After issuing the material bills, the opposite parties on 27th February 2015 Conducted an adalat after duly intimating the complainant. Strangely yet the complainant did not make it a point to avail the benefits available from the Adalath. The opposite parties had sent the complainant’s complaint dated 3rd October 2015 to the higher office with a recommend for one time settlement and was waiting for the reply of the same. It was under this circumstance, the opposite parties failed to respond to the complainants various letter of complaints and enquiry. After computerization the opposite parties have commenced bimonthly billing system. The opposite parties kept away from severing the water connection of the complainant solely on humanitarian grounds. The opposite parties are very much prepared to intimate the complainant as to one time settlement forthwith upon the opposite parties receive information as to the same from the higher office.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the complainant’s proof affidavit and the documents Ext. A1 to Ext. A7 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, save filing the version no evidence was let in.
4. Taking into account the contentions of the parties, the questions crop for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the complainant is liable to pay off the bills as issued by the opposite parties?
(2) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
5. We meticulously perused the complaint, version and other materials available on record before us. On a analysis of the entire materials, it appears that bills issued by the opposite parties dated 16th September 2015 for an amount o f Rs. 2,29,965/- , 19th November 2015 for an amount of Rs. 240501 and 20th January 2016 for an amount of Rs. 251463/- are without proper basis and reasoning. It is pertinent to notice that though the complainant sent notice to the opposite parties requesting the statements of both the materials consumer Numbers, and sent so many reminders, the opposite parties admittedly did not make any response. The explanation offered by the opposite parties appears so strange and as such, the same does not inspire confidence in the mind of this Forum. On a close scrutiny of the entire materials, it does appear that the opposite parties have not consistent version. On top of all these, the complainant on 28th September 2016 replaced the defective meter with an afresh. Admittedly as per the reading taken by the opposite party on 24th January 2017 the consumer’s consumption of water is mere 5KL. Thus going by all these circumstances, it can be seen that the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service. We are of the considered view that the complainant is not liable to pay off the bills is issued by the opposite parties. However the complainant is bound to pay off the arrears in line with the water charge that has been in existence during the respective periods thereof.
6. In the wake of what have been elaborated supra, it is declared that the material bills dated 16th September 2015, 19th November 2015 and 20th are null and invalid. However, the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.30000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) as water charge to the opposite party as arrived on by way of the calculation beneath on basis of complainant’s consumption of water a aforementioned 5 KL.
From 2002 upto 6/2004- 30 months @Rs. 102/- -30 x 102 = 3060/-
From 7/2004 up to 8/2008 – 49 months @ Rs. 125/- -49x125 = 6125/-
From 9/2008 up to 2013-57 months @ Rs. 175 -75x176=10032/-
From 7/2013 up to 3/2017 45 months @ Rs.202/- -45x202= 9090/-
Total = 28307+ Surcharge = Rs. 30000/- (Thirty thousand)
The parties shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.
In the result the complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to compensation or cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 14th day of March, 2017.
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - M.Abdul Rahim (Witness)
Ext.A1 - KWA Notice Dated 20-6-2016
Ext.A2 series - KWA Notice Dated 23-5-2-16 and 19-3-2016
Ext.A3 Series - KWA Bill dated 30/5/2001 and 31/7/2001
Ext.A4. - Receipt of KWA Dated 3/10/2001
Ext.A5 Series - Letters from Saukar Mazjid Committee. Dtd. 31/10/15, 7/12/15, 2/2/16.
Ext.A6 - Series of Acknowledgement Cards.
Ext.A7 - Series of Postal Receipts.
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
//True copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent.
To
Complainant/Opposite party/SF
Typed by: Br/-
Compd. By:
