BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 185/2002 Filed on 02.05.2002

Dated : 15.12.2008

Complainant:

N. Sankaran Nair, 'Lekshmi', T.C 19/865, Kesavdev Road, Poojappura P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-12.

Opposite parties:

1. The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Jala Bhavan, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram – 10.

    

2. The Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Karamana Section Office, Thiruvananthapuram – 2.

(By adv. C. Sasidharan Pillai)

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 11.11.2003, 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 13.11.2008, the Forum on 15.12.2008 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of Kerala Water Authority with consumer No. KMA 3288/D. Complainant had remitted water charges without default till February 2001. On 15.03.2001 complainant received a bill for Rs. 5083/- from the opposite parties. On receiving the said bill complainant lodged a complaint before the opposite parties and opposite partied directed the complainant to remit Rs. 1000/- and to replace the old meter with new one. On 31.07.2001 complainant remitted Rs. 1000/- and replaced the water meter. Complainant's family consists of only two members. That was inspected by the Assistant Engineer of the opposite parties concerned and opposite parties directed the officials to collect minimum charge from the complainant. No further action was taken to cancel the earlier bills. Complainant is entitled to get water replacement cost of Rs. 670/- and complainant is not bound to remit Rs. 1000/- as directed by the opposite parties. Complainant's water consumption comes below 10 KL. Hence this complaint to cancel the bill dated 15.03.2001 and to get compensation of Rs. 5000/- from the opposite parties.

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and the said connection was taken on 27.06.1988. The complainant has remitted minimum water consumption charge only till February 2001. On inspection of water meter it was found that complainant has consumed around 28 KL water per month, thereby assessed the arrear of Rs. 5083/- to be realized from the complainant for which opposite parties issued consumer bill dated 15.03.2001 to the complainant. On receiving a complaint from the complainant opposite parties directed the complainant to remit Rs. 1000/- and to replace the existing meter with new one. As per the direction of the opposite parties, complainant remitted Rs. 1000/- on 30.07.2001 and replaced the water meter on 06.08.2001. After replacement of the meter, the reading showed that complainant has used an average of 8 KL water. Considering the old average of 28 KL and new average of 8 KL the opposite party has calculated a joint average of 18 KL(28+8/2). On the basis of the average 18 KL opposite parties are entitled to get water charges from 06/94 onwards. On the basis of the new average upto 10/2001, there was an arrear of Rs. 2125/- and the same was informed to the complainant. Opposite parties never committed any deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint. As per the provisions of Water Supply Regulation water meter is to be replaced by the consumer. Hence complainant is not entitled to get the replacement cost from the opposite parties.

The points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bill dated 15.03.2001 cancelled?

2. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. Other reliefs and costs.

In support of the complaint, complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P5. In rebuttal opposite party has filed affidavit. Opposite parties did not file any documents.

Points (i) to (iii):- It has been the case of the complainant that complainant is the consumer of Kerala Water Authority with consumer No. KMA/3288/D, that complainant has remitted water charges till February 2001, that complainant has got a bill dated 15.03.2001 for Rs. 5083/- as arrears (by Ext. P1) from the opposite party, that on a complaint lodged before the Water Authority, opposite party directed to remit Rs. 1000/- and directed the complainant to replace the old meter with a new meter and accordingly complainant remitted Rs. 1000/- on 31.07.2001 and installed new water meter in the premises. It has also been the case of the complainant that, on inspection by the Assistant Engineer, it was directed to collect minimum charge from the complainant which is evident from Ext. P2, but nothing was mentioned about the adjustment of the already collected amount of Rs. 1000/- from the complainant in the future bills. Submission by the complainant that since no action was taken by the 2^nd opposite party, complainant sent a registered letter dated 07.12.2001 to the 1^st opposite party(Ext. P3). Ext. P4

is the copy of the bill issued by Kailas Agencies for purchase of new water meter. Ext. P5 is the copy of consumer's meter card. It has been contended by the opposite parties that complainant has remitted amount onlyfor minimum consumption for 10 KL while as per meter reading complainant had consumed monthly average of 28 KL, thereby complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5083/- as arrears as per Ext. P1 bill, that on a complaint over the said bill complainant was directed to remit Rs. 1000/- and replace the old meter with new one. Thereafter Ext. P1 bill was revised thereby complainant was directed to pay arrear amount of Rs. 2125/- on the basis of monthly average of 18 KL ie; the average of old average of 28 KL and new average of 8 KL = 28+8/2= 18 KL. Opposite parties did not furnish any document. As per Ext. P1 bill, average consumption mentioned is 28 KL, but the status of the meter is not working. It is not seen mentioned in Ext. P1 that from which date onwards the said meter remained not working. It is mentioned that upto 02/01 arrear amount is Rs. 5083/- and monthly charge is Rs. 76/-. Consumer has right to know from which date onwards, the said meter remained non-working. Even in the absence of meter reading opposite parties have calculated the monthly charge of Rs. 76/-. As per regulation the actual amount due will be ascertained on reading meters and necessary adjustment bill showing amounts due to/from the consumer will be sent to the consumer once in six months. Opposite parties did not produce documents to prove otherwise. Ext. P5 is the consumer's meter card, wherein it is seen stated that the meter replaced on 06.08.2001 and meter reading recorded as 25 KL on 11/01, 65 KL on 03/02, 121 KL on 08/02, 153 KL on 10/02, 177 KL on 01/03, 197 KL on 03/03 and 217 KL on 05/03. It is pertinent to note that the new meter was installed on 06.08.2001. From 06.08.2001 to 03/02 (6 months) the meter reading recorded was 65 KL. That is the average monthly consumption would come around 65/6=10.9=11 KL. From 1994 to 03/99 for 11 KL, water charge was Rs. 21/-. From 01.04.1999 onwards, water charge for 11 KL becomes Rs. 25/-. No necessary adjustment bill seen issued prior to 15.03.2001. In the absence of such adjustment bill prior to 15.03.2001, we can presume that complainant might have consumed monthly water around 11 KL in the past. Opposite parties are liable to charge arrears if any, on the basis of monthly consumption of 11 KL from 06/94 onwards till the date of replacement of meter(that is 06.08.2001 (as per Ext. P5) Complainant has produced receipts issued by opposite parties which are on the record. On perusal of receipts it is found that complainant has remitted Rs. 107/- on 11.02.1994, Rs. 221/- on 14.09.1994, Rs. 260/- on 08/95, Rs. 100/- on 07/96, Rs. 124/- on 04/97, Rs. 95/- on 08/97, Rs. 119/- on 02/98, Rs. 101/- on 07/1999, Rs. 93/- on 11/99, Rs. 110/- on 01/2000, Rs. 164/- on 09/2000, Rs. 1000/- on 07/01and Rs. 500/- on 02/03. That is from 11.02.1994 to 02/03, complainant had remitted an amount of Rs. 2994/-. From 02/94 to 03/99 complainant had to remit Rs. 21x61 months= Rs. 1281/-. From 04/99 to 08/01= 25x28 months=Rs. 700/-. That is from 02/94 to 08/01 opposite party is liable to collect water charge from the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1281+ 700= Rs. 1981/-, while opposite parties have collected Rs. 2494/- from the complainant, so the excess amount collected would come around Rs. 513/-. Thereafter opposite party collected Rs. 500/- on 02/03 as per the direction of this Forum. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the bill dated 15.03.2001 for Rs. 5083/- deserves to be cancelled. From 06.08.2001 onwards, new meter has been functioning and water reading has been taken. The above said excess amount of Rs. 513/- and Rs. 500/- totalling Rs. 1013/- has to be adjusted against the new bill to be issued by the opposite parties to the complainant on the basis of meter readings. As per water Supply Regulation 12, new meter is to be installed by the complainant. Hence complainant is not entitled to get the cost of water meter from the opposite parties.

In the result, complaint is allowed. The bill dated 15.03.2001 for Rs. 5083/- issued by the opposite party is hereby cancelled. Opposite parties are directed to raise fresh bill on the basis of the water readings from 06.08.2001 after deduction of the amount of Rs. 1013/- already collected from the complainant and any other amounts if remitted by the complainant after 19.02.2003 to the opposite parties. There will be no order as to compensation and costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.

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 day of 15^th December 2008.

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 185/2002

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - N. Sankaran Nair

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of consumer bill No. KWA/KMA/Mar/2001/-68

dated 15.03.2001.

P2 - Copy of letter dated 16.07.2001 issued to the 2^nd opposite

party.

P3 - Copy of letter dated 07.12.2001 issued to the 1^st opposite

party.

P4 - Photocopy of cash bill No. 1753 dated 02.08.2001.

P5 - Photocopy of consumer's meter card of Con. No. KWA-3288.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT