BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 183/2002 Filed on 29/04/2002 Dated: 30..07..2009
Complainant: Geetha Jose Thottam, D/o Sosa John, T.C.26/1279(1),Panavila, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. S. Ajith) Opposite parties: The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Jala Bhavan, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Section II, Pattoor, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Advs. C. Sasidharan Pillai & P. Dileepkhan)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 18/11/2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..05..2009, the Forum on 30..07..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.PCH/4969/N, that water connection was given in favour of the mother of the complainant Smt. Sosa John, who expired on 12/1/2000, that thereafter complainant is using the water connection and the water bills were remitted by the complainant, that the said connection is provided in non-domestic category, since complainant is running an authorised service centre at the premises where the water connection is provided, that water is consumed only as drinking water by the persons working in the service station, that the water required for running the service station is taken from the well in the premises, and that opposite party had made several inspections and they are also convinced of the same. Opposite parties issued a Provisional Invoice Card for remitting Rs. 60/- per month, that on 4/99 onwards the monthly rate was revised at Rs.102/- per month, that the complainant was remitting the monthly payment without any default on the due day itself. During September 1999 the opposite party had informed the complainant that there was arrears of Rs.4,086/- from 12/96 to 8/99, that the complainant remitted the said amount and a new Provisional Invoice Card was issued in which it is stated that there is no arrears upto 8/2000. During December, 2001 when the complainant approached the opposite party for remitting the monthly charge they refused to accept the payment stating that there is arrears of water charges. Complainant received a bill dated 14/1/2002 from the opposite party for Rs. 50,352/- as arrears upto December 2001. On receipt of the said bill complainant had lodged a complaint with the opposite parties and no reply was sent by opposite parties, that complainant received bill dated 6/4/2002 for an amount of Rs. 55,927/- and another bill dated 19/4/2002 for an amount of Rs. 57,122/-. The claim now made by the opposite party is against the provisions on the invoice card. Hence this complaint to cancel the said bills and to exonerate the complainant from the liability to pay the said amounts and for other reliefs. 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the said water connection is given to the service centre under non-domestic category, that water charge was revised in 1/2002 and actual readings on 1/12/1994 was 0.32kl, which rose to 3936kl on 25/12/1997, which rose to 5129kl on 25/12/1998, on 8/9/1999 meter reading was 6363kl, which rose to 7233kl on 26/5/2000, 8020kl on 26/7/2001, 8547kl on 16/1/2002 and to 8722kl on 19/4/2002. Total water charge upto 12/2001 was Rs.50,352/- and that upto 4/2002 water charge was Rs.58,710/-, that the bills were issued as per the readings. The consumer is bound to pay the same. The complainant is not entitled to any relief sought. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bills dated 14/1/2002, 13/3/2002 and 19/4/2002 cancelled? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other reliefs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit, and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite parties filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not produce any documents.
5. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. PCH/4969/N and water connection is categorised as non-domestic. It has been the case of the complainant, that the water is consumed as drinking water by the persons working in the service station, that the water required for running the service station is taken from the well in the premises, that the officials of the opposite party had made several inspections and they were also convinced of the same and issued a Provisional Invoice Card to the complainant for remitting Rs.60/- as water charge per month; and that from the month of April 1999 onwards the monthly rate revised and the same is fixed at Rs.102/- per month. It has also been the case of the complainant, that she was remitting the monthly payment without any default on the due date itself; that during September 1999 the opposite party had informed the complainant about the arrears of Rs. 4,086/- from 12/96 to 8/99 which the complainant remitted. Submission by the complainant is that during December 2001 when the complainant approached opposite parties for remitting monthly charge, opposite parties refused to accept the payment stating that there is arrears in remittance of water charge, that thereafter the complainant received three bills dated 14/1/2002 for Rs.50,352/-, bill dated 13/03/2002 for Rs.55,927/- and bill dated 19/4/2002 for Rs.57,122/-. Ext.P1 is the copy of receipt for Rs.4,086/- issued by the opposite parties, Ext.P2 is the copy of the Provisional Invoice Card wherein it is seen recorded Rs.102/- from 4/99, as monthly amount. It is further seen that the arrears of Rs. Nil is due upto 8/2000. On a perusal of payment schedule printed overleaf of Ext.P2, it is seen that consumer has remitted monthly charges upto 10/2001. Ext.P3 is the consumer bill dated 14/1/2002 for Rs.50,352/-. As per Ext.P3 opening meter reading is ’0’ and closing meter reading is 8020 kl. From 1/12/1991 to 26/7/2001, average consumption is 56.2kl, Ext.P4 is the copy of the letter sent by the complainant to 2nd opposite party. Ext.P5 is the reply notice dated 6/4/2002 issued by the 2nd opposite party to complainant. Ext.P5(a) is the consumer bill dated 13/3/2002 for Rs.55,927/-. As per Ext.P5(a) the opening meter reading is 8020kl, and closing meter reading is 8547kl, and average consumption is 92.1kl. Ext.P6 is the copy of the letter dated 17/4/2002, addressed to 2nd opposite party by the complainant. Ext.P7 is the copy of the letter dated 19/4/2002 for Rs.57,122/-. In the version, opposite party has mentioned different dates of meter reading such that 3936kl on 25/12/1997, 5129kl on 25/12/1998, 6363kl on 8/9/1999, 7233kl on 26/5/2000, 8020kl on 26/7/2001. As per Ext.P3 opening meter reading is ’0’, meter reading on 26/7/2001 is 8020kl. There is no material to show that meter reading was taken prior to 26/7/2001. As per the Provision 13 of the Water Supply Regulation, the actual amount due will be ascertained on reading meters and necessary adjustment bill showing amount due will be sent to consumer once in six months. In the version, it is seen stated that meter reading on 25/12/1997 was 3936kl, but opposite party has no case that adjustment bill showing amount due if any was issued to consumer immediately after the said meter reading. It is to be noted that in the version different meter reading dates are seen mentioned prior to 26/7/2001, but no adjustment bills were issued, simultaneously or immediately after the said meter readings. Submission by the complainant is that she had remitted the arrear amount of Rs.4,086/- by Ext.P1. As per Ext.P2 Provisional Invoice Card arrear of Rs. Nil due upto 8/2000. As per Ext.P3 bill dated 11/1/2002, average consumption is calculated from 1/12/1991 to 26/7/2001. If opposite parties had taken meter readings as mentioned in the version prior to 26/7/2001 and were there arrear amounts if any, opposite parties would have definitely sent adjustment bill then and there. Opposite parties have no case that they had issued any adjustment bill prior to the bill dated 11/1/2002 and complainant failed to remit the same. Further, in Ext.P3 bill average consumption is seen calculated from 1/12/1991 to 26/7/2001 which is against the provision of Water Supply Regulation – preparation of bill violating the provision of Water Supply Regulation would definitely saddle the complainant. There is no case on the part of the complainant, that the meter reading is erroneous and water meter is faulty.
6. In view of the foregoing discussions and in the light of evidence available on records, we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if complainant is directed to remit arrear amount of water charges from 9/2000 onwards. According to opposite parties, on 26/5/2000 meter reading was 7233kl. It is on the basis of the said reading opposite parties have to raise fresh bill, after adjusting the amounts if any remitted by the complainant after 8/2000. In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Bills dated 14/1/2002, 13/3/2002 and 19/4/2002 issued by opposite parties to consumer No. PCH/4969/N are hereby cancelled. Opposite parties shall raise fresh bill claiming arrears from 9/2000 onwards considering meter reading 7233kl as the basis, after adjusting the amounts if any remitted by the complainant since 8/2000. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Both 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 30th day of July, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.183/2002 APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness : NIL
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Receipt dated 24/9/1999 issued by opposite party P2 : Photocopy of Provisional Invoice Card of consumer No.PCH/4969/N P3 : Consumer bill dated 14/1/2002 No.KWA/PCH/Jan/2002/-19 of con.No.PCH/4969/N for Rs.50,352/-. P4 : Letter issued to opposite party by the complainant P4(a) : Acknowledgment card addressed to the opposite party. P5 : Letter No.AB2/697/2001/PTR dated 6/4/2002 issued by opposite party to the complainant. P5(a) : Consumer Bill No.KWA/PCH/Mar/2002/-11 dated 13/3/2002 for Rs.55,927/-. P6 : Letter addressed to opposite party by the complainant. P7 : Photocopy of consumer bill dated 19/4/2002 No.KWA/PCH/Apr/2002/-15
III. Opposite parties’ witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties’ documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 183/2002 Filed on 29/04/2002 Dated: 30..07..2009
Complainant: Geetha Jose Thottam, D/o Sosa John, T.C.26/1279(1),Panavila, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. S. Ajith) Opposite parties: The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Jala Bhavan, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Section II, Pattoor, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Advs. C. Sasidharan Pillai & P. Dileepkhan)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 18/11/2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..05..2009, the Forum on 30..07..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.PCH/4969/N, that water connection was given in favour of the mother of the complainant Smt. Sosa John, who expired on 12/1/2000, that thereafter complainant is using the water connection and the water bills were remitted by the complainant, that the said connection is provided in non-domestic category, since complainant is running an authorised service centre at the premises where the water connection is provided, that water is consumed only as drinking water by the persons working in the service station, that the water required for running the service station is taken from the well in the premises, and that opposite party had made several inspections and they are also convinced of the same. Opposite parties issued a Provisional Invoice Card for remitting Rs. 60/- per month, that on 4/99 onwards the monthly rate was revised at Rs.102/- per month, that the complainant was remitting the monthly payment without any default on the due day itself. During September 1999 the opposite party had informed the complainant that there was arrears of Rs.4,086/- from 12/96 to 8/99, that the complainant remitted the said amount and a new Provisional Invoice Card was issued in which it is stated that there is no arrears upto 8/2000. During December, 2001 when the complainant approached the opposite party for remitting the monthly charge they refused to accept the payment stating that there is arrears of water charges. Complainant received a bill dated 14/1/2002 from the opposite party for Rs. 50,352/- as arrears upto December 2001. On receipt of the said bill complainant had lodged a complaint with the opposite parties and no reply was sent by opposite parties, that complainant received bill dated 6/4/2002 for an amount of Rs. 55,927/- and another bill dated 19/4/2002 for an amount of Rs. 57,122/-. The claim now made by the opposite party is against the provisions on the invoice card. Hence this complaint to cancel the said bills and to exonerate the complainant from the liability to pay the said amounts and for other reliefs. 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the said water connection is given to the service centre under non-domestic category, that water charge was revised in 1/2002 and actual readings on 1/12/1994 was 0.32kl, which rose to 3936kl on 25/12/1997, which rose to 5129kl on 25/12/1998, on 8/9/1999 meter reading was 6363kl, which rose to 7233kl on 26/5/2000, 8020kl on 26/7/2001, 8547kl on 16/1/2002 and to 8722kl on 19/4/2002. Total water charge upto 12/2001 was Rs.50,352/- and that upto 4/2002 water charge was Rs.58,710/-, that the bills were issued as per the readings. The consumer is bound to pay the same. The complainant is not entitled to any relief sought. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bills dated 14/1/2002, 13/3/2002 and 19/4/2002 cancelled? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other reliefs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit, and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite parties filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not produce any documents.
5. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. PCH/4969/N and water connection is categorised as non-domestic. It has been the case of the complainant, that the water is consumed as drinking water by the persons working in the service station, that the water required for running the service station is taken from the well in the premises, that the officials of the opposite party had made several inspections and they were also convinced of the same and issued a Provisional Invoice Card to the complainant for remitting Rs.60/- as water charge per month; and that from the month of April 1999 onwards the monthly rate revised and the same is fixed at Rs.102/- per month. It has also been the case of the complainant, that she was remitting the monthly payment without any default on the due date itself; that during September 1999 the opposite party had informed the complainant about the arrears of Rs. 4,086/- from 12/96 to 8/99 which the complainant remitted. Submission by the complainant is that during December 2001 when the complainant approached opposite parties for remitting monthly charge, opposite parties refused to accept the payment stating that there is arrears in remittance of water charge, that thereafter the complainant received three bills dated 14/1/2002 for Rs.50,352/-, bill dated 13/03/2002 for Rs.55,927/- and bill dated 19/4/2002 for Rs.57,122/-. Ext.P1 is the copy of receipt for Rs.4,086/- issued by the opposite parties, Ext.P2 is the copy of the Provisional Invoice Card wherein it is seen recorded Rs.102/- from 4/99, as monthly amount. It is further seen that the arrears of Rs. Nil is due upto 8/2000. On a perusal of payment schedule printed overleaf of Ext.P2, it is seen that consumer has remitted monthly charges upto 10/2001. Ext.P3 is the consumer bill dated 14/1/2002 for Rs.50,352/-. As per Ext.P3 opening meter reading is ’0’ and closing meter reading is 8020 kl. From 1/12/1991 to 26/7/2001, average consumption is 56.2kl, Ext.P4 is the copy of the letter sent by the complainant to 2nd opposite party. Ext.P5 is the reply notice dated 6/4/2002 issued by the 2nd opposite party to complainant. Ext.P5(a) is the consumer bill dated 13/3/2002 for Rs.55,927/-. As per Ext.P5(a) the opening meter reading is 8020kl, and closing meter reading is 8547kl, and average consumption is 92.1kl. Ext.P6 is the copy of the letter dated 17/4/2002, addressed to 2nd opposite party by the complainant. Ext.P7 is the copy of the letter dated 19/4/2002 for Rs.57,122/-. In the version, opposite party has mentioned different dates of meter reading such that 3936kl on 25/12/1997, 5129kl on 25/12/1998, 6363kl on 8/9/1999, 7233kl on 26/5/2000, 8020kl on 26/7/2001. As per Ext.P3 opening meter reading is ’0’, meter reading on 26/7/2001 is 8020kl. There is no material to show that meter reading was taken prior to 26/7/2001. As per the Provision 13 of the Water Supply Regulation, the actual amount due will be ascertained on reading meters and necessary adjustment bill showing amount due will be sent to consumer once in six months. In the version, it is seen stated that meter reading on 25/12/1997 was 3936kl, but opposite party has no case that adjustment bill showing amount due if any was issued to consumer immediately after the said meter reading. It is to be noted that in the version different meter reading dates are seen mentioned prior to 26/7/2001, but no adjustment bills were issued, simultaneously or immediately after the said meter readings. Submission by the complainant is that she had remitted the arrear amount of Rs.4,086/- by Ext.P1. As per Ext.P2 Provisional Invoice Card arrear of Rs. Nil due upto 8/2000. As per Ext.P3 bill dated 11/1/2002, average consumption is calculated from 1/12/1991 to 26/7/2001. If opposite parties had taken meter readings as mentioned in the version prior to 26/7/2001 and were there arrear amounts if any, opposite parties would have definitely sent adjustment bill then and there. Opposite parties have no case that they had issued any adjustment bill prior to the bill dated 11/1/2002 and complainant failed to remit the same. Further, in Ext.P3 bill average consumption is seen calculated from 1/12/1991 to 26/7/2001 which is against the provision of Water Supply Regulation – preparation of bill violating the provision of Water Supply Regulation would definitely saddle the complainant. There is no case on the part of the complainant, that the meter reading is erroneous and water meter is faulty.
6. In view of the foregoing discussions and in the light of evidence available on records, we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if complainant is directed to remit arrear amount of water charges from 9/2000 onwards. According to opposite parties, on 26/5/2000 meter reading was 7233kl. It is on the basis of the said reading opposite parties have to raise fresh bill, after adjusting the amounts if any remitted by the complainant after 8/2000. In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Bills dated 14/1/2002, 13/3/2002 and 19/4/2002 issued by opposite parties to consumer No. PCH/4969/N are hereby cancelled. Opposite parties shall raise fresh bill claiming arrears from 9/2000 onwards considering meter reading 7233kl as the basis, after adjusting the amounts if any remitted by the complainant since 8/2000. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Both 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 30th day of July, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.183/2002 APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness : NIL
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Receipt dated 24/9/1999 issued by opposite party P2 : Photocopy of Provisional Invoice Card of consumer No.PCH/4969/N P3 : Consumer bill dated 14/1/2002 No.KWA/PCH/Jan/2002/-19 of con.No.PCH/4969/N for Rs.50,352/-. P4 : Letter issued to opposite party by the complainant P4(a) : Acknowledgment card addressed to the opposite party. P5 : Letter No.AB2/697/2001/PTR dated 6/4/2002 issued by opposite party to the complainant. P5(a) : Consumer Bill No.KWA/PCH/Mar/2002/-11 dated 13/3/2002 for Rs.55,927/-. P6 : Letter addressed to opposite party by the complainant. P7 : Photocopy of consumer bill dated 19/4/2002 No.KWA/PCH/Apr/2002/-15
III. Opposite parties’ witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties’ documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 183/2002 Filed on 29/04/2002 Dated: 30..07..2009
Complainant: Geetha Jose Thottam, D/o Sosa John, T.C.26/1279(1),Panavila, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. S. Ajith) Opposite parties: The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Jala Bhavan, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Section II, Pattoor, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Advs. C. Sasidharan Pillai & P. Dileepkhan)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 18/11/2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..05..2009, the Forum on 30..07..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.PCH/4969/N, that water connection was given in favour of the mother of the complainant Smt. Sosa John, who expired on 12/1/2000, that thereafter complainant is using the water connection and the water bills were remitted by the complainant, that the said connection is provided in non-domestic category, since complainant is running an authorised service centre at the premises where the water connection is provided, that water is consumed only as drinking water by the persons working in the service station, that the water required for running the service station is taken from the well in the premises, and that opposite party had made several inspections and they are also convinced of the same. Opposite parties issued a Provisional Invoice Card for remitting Rs. 60/- per month, that on 4/99 onwards the monthly rate was revised at Rs.102/- per month, that the complainant was remitting the monthly payment without any default on the due day itself. During September 1999 the opposite party had informed the complainant that there was arrears of Rs.4,086/- from 12/96 to 8/99, that the complainant remitted the said amount and a new Provisional Invoice Card was issued in which it is stated that there is no arrears upto 8/2000. During December, 2001 when the complainant approached the opposite party for remitting the monthly charge they refused to accept the payment stating that there is arrears of water charges. Complainant received a bill dated 14/1/2002 from the opposite party for Rs. 50,352/- as arrears upto December 2001. On receipt of the said bill complainant had lodged a complaint with the opposite parties and no reply was sent by opposite parties, that complainant received bill dated 6/4/2002 for an amount of Rs. 55,927/- and another bill dated 19/4/2002 for an amount of Rs. 57,122/-. The claim now made by the opposite party is against the provisions on the invoice card. Hence this complaint to cancel the said bills and to exonerate the complainant from the liability to pay the said amounts and for other reliefs. 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the said water connection is given to the service centre under non-domestic category, that water charge was revised in 1/2002 and actual readings on 1/12/1994 was 0.32kl, which rose to 3936kl on 25/12/1997, which rose to 5129kl on 25/12/1998, on 8/9/1999 meter reading was 6363kl, which rose to 7233kl on 26/5/2000, 8020kl on 26/7/2001, 8547kl on 16/1/2002 and to 8722kl on 19/4/2002. Total water charge upto 12/2001 was Rs.50,352/- and that upto 4/2002 water charge was Rs.58,710/-, that the bills were issued as per the readings. The consumer is bound to pay the same. The complainant is not entitled to any relief sought. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bills dated 14/1/2002, 13/3/2002 and 19/4/2002 cancelled? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other reliefs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit, and Exts. P1 to P7 were marked. In rebuttal, opposite parties filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not produce any documents.
5. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. PCH/4969/N and water connection is categorised as non-domestic. It has been the case of the complainant, that the water is consumed as drinking water by the persons working in the service station, that the water required for running the service station is taken from the well in the premises, that the officials of the opposite party had made several inspections and they were also convinced of the same and issued a Provisional Invoice Card to the complainant for remitting Rs.60/- as water charge per month; and that from the month of April 1999 onwards the monthly rate revised and the same is fixed at Rs.102/- per month. It has also been the case of the complainant, that she was remitting the monthly payment without any default on the due date itself; that during September 1999 the opposite party had informed the complainant about the arrears of Rs. 4,086/- from 12/96 to 8/99 which the complainant remitted. Submission by the complainant is that during December 2001 when the complainant approached opposite parties for remitting monthly charge, opposite parties refused to accept the payment stating that there is arrears in remittance of water charge, that thereafter the complainant received three bills dated 14/1/2002 for Rs.50,352/-, bill dated 13/03/2002 for Rs.55,927/- and bill dated 19/4/2002 for Rs.57,122/-. Ext.P1 is the copy of receipt for Rs.4,086/- issued by the opposite parties, Ext.P2 is the copy of the Provisional Invoice Card wherein it is seen recorded Rs.102/- from 4/99, as monthly amount. It is further seen that the arrears of Rs. Nil is due upto 8/2000. On a perusal of payment schedule printed overleaf of Ext.P2, it is seen that consumer has remitted monthly charges upto 10/2001. Ext.P3 is the consumer bill dated 14/1/2002 for Rs.50,352/-. As per Ext.P3 opening meter reading is ’0’ and closing meter reading is 8020 kl. From 1/12/1991 to 26/7/2001, average consumption is 56.2kl, Ext.P4 is the copy of the letter sent by the complainant to 2nd opposite party. Ext.P5 is the reply notice dated 6/4/2002 issued by the 2nd opposite party to complainant. Ext.P5(a) is the consumer bill dated 13/3/2002 for Rs.55,927/-. As per Ext.P5(a) the opening meter reading is 8020kl, and closing meter reading is 8547kl, and average consumption is 92.1kl. Ext.P6 is the copy of the letter dated 17/4/2002, addressed to 2nd opposite party by the complainant. Ext.P7 is the copy of the letter dated 19/4/2002 for Rs.57,122/-. In the version, opposite party has mentioned different dates of meter reading such that 3936kl on 25/12/1997, 5129kl on 25/12/1998, 6363kl on 8/9/1999, 7233kl on 26/5/2000, 8020kl on 26/7/2001. As per Ext.P3 opening meter reading is ’0’, meter reading on 26/7/2001 is 8020kl. There is no material to show that meter reading was taken prior to 26/7/2001. As per the Provision 13 of the Water Supply Regulation, the actual amount due will be ascertained on reading meters and necessary adjustment bill showing amount due will be sent to consumer once in six months. In the version, it is seen stated that meter reading on 25/12/1997 was 3936kl, but opposite party has no case that adjustment bill showing amount due if any was issued to consumer immediately after the said meter reading. It is to be noted that in the version different meter reading dates are seen mentioned prior to 26/7/2001, but no adjustment bills were issued, simultaneously or immediately after the said meter readings. Submission by the complainant is that she had remitted the arrear amount of Rs.4,086/- by Ext.P1. As per Ext.P2 Provisional Invoice Card arrear of Rs. Nil due upto 8/2000. As per Ext.P3 bill dated 11/1/2002, average consumption is calculated from 1/12/1991 to 26/7/2001. If opposite parties had taken meter readings as mentioned in the version prior to 26/7/2001 and were there arrear amounts if any, opposite parties would have definitely sent adjustment bill then and there. Opposite parties have no case that they had issued any adjustment bill prior to the bill dated 11/1/2002 and complainant failed to remit the same. Further, in Ext.P3 bill average consumption is seen calculated from 1/12/1991 to 26/7/2001 which is against the provision of Water Supply Regulation – preparation of bill violating the provision of Water Supply Regulation would definitely saddle the complainant. There is no case on the part of the complainant, that the meter reading is erroneous and water meter is faulty.
6. In view of the foregoing discussions and in the light of evidence available on records, we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if complainant is directed to remit arrear amount of water charges from 9/2000 onwards. According to opposite parties, on 26/5/2000 meter reading was 7233kl. It is on the basis of the said reading opposite parties have to raise fresh bill, after adjusting the amounts if any remitted by the complainant after 8/2000. In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Bills dated 14/1/2002, 13/3/2002 and 19/4/2002 issued by opposite parties to consumer No. PCH/4969/N are hereby cancelled. Opposite parties shall raise fresh bill claiming arrears from 9/2000 onwards considering meter reading 7233kl as the basis, after adjusting the amounts if any remitted by the complainant since 8/2000. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Both 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 30th day of July, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.183/2002 APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness : NIL
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Receipt dated 24/9/1999 issued by opposite party P2 : Photocopy of Provisional Invoice Card of consumer No.PCH/4969/N P3 : Consumer bill dated 14/1/2002 No.KWA/PCH/Jan/2002/-19 of con.No.PCH/4969/N for Rs.50,352/-. P4 : Letter issued to opposite party by the complainant P4(a) : Acknowledgment card addressed to the opposite party. P5 : Letter No.AB2/697/2001/PTR dated 6/4/2002 issued by opposite party to the complainant. P5(a) : Consumer Bill No.KWA/PCH/Mar/2002/-11 dated 13/3/2002 for Rs.55,927/-. P6 : Letter addressed to opposite party by the complainant. P7 : Photocopy of consumer bill dated 19/4/2002 No.KWA/PCH/Apr/2002/-15
III. Opposite parties’ witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties’ documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................President
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | |
