BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No. 257/2003 Filed on 30..06..2003

Dated: 15..05..2010

Complainant:

Sasidharan, represented by his wife Smt. Sudha, ESS ESS Auto Service, opp. of Indian Oil Petrol Pump, Medayil Veedu, Ulloor, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. Neyyattinkara N. Mohanachandran)

Opposite parties:

1. The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Asst. Executive Engineer, Kawdiar, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. The Asst. Engineer, (AE VII), Ulloor, Pongummoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

(By Advs. Santhamma Thomas & 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 12..01..2005, 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 31..03..2010, the Forum on 15..05..2010 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. UPW/3108/N of Ulloor Village, that the water from the said connection has been used for domestic purpose, that there is a well in the compound of his house from which water has been taken for service station, that opposite parties issued a notice/bill dated 15/3/2003 for Rs. 24,678/- to the complainant, that complainant filed a petition before the 1^st opposite party for immediate rectification of the excess charges and 1^st opposite party forwarded the same to 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties, that thereafter meter reader came to premises of the complainant and handed over the bill, that opposite parties did not take any action on the said petition. Hence complainant further sent an intimation dated 26/6/2003 to the opposite parties. It is submitted by the complainant that he had already remitted Rs. 25,302/- and he is entitled to reimburse the same. On 2/6/2003 opposite parties issued a bill for Rs. 27,124/- the said bill was served without verifying the water meter. It is further submitted that another water meter placed in the same compound which is being used by one Mr. Sukumaran and others, that since the said water meter was damaged and thereby there was leakage of water, that the said Sukumaran and others have sold their property to the strangers thereby they evaded from remitting the water charges. Hence this complaint to declare that the complainant is not liable to remit the bill amount as demanded by opposite parties and that complainant is liable to remit Rs. 157/- per month as water charges under domestic category.

2. Opposite parties filed version contending that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.UPW/3108/N, that the water meter of the connection is not working, that there is no leakage of water in the said connection, that complainant is getting enough water pressure in his connection, that complainant was directed to replace the faulty meter with new one, that a service station is working in the house of the complainant and water is using for service station purpose also. There is a well in the same compound, that the bill issued to the consumer was for the arrears up to date, that as against a petition lodged by the consumer the Executive Engineer has ordered to service the bill of the consumer by fixing 48 kl as Provisional Invoice Card and fine during the period from 10/86 to 2/2002 was waived off and he was directed to fix the new meter. It is further averred in the version that consumer was allowed 10 installments to remit the arrears, that the consumer remitted Rs. 2,040/- as first installment on 30/4/02 and replaced the meter, that consumer also remitted Rs. 2,000/- on 12/8/02, but failed to remit the other 8 installments, that complainant is liable to pay the water charges as per the bill, that complainant had paid Rs. 25,800/- in total since he took connection on 10/86, that the bill was given as per actual amount, the water charges for the consumer at present based on the new meter readings of Rs.159/- per month, that the previous meter of the consumer was not working, the charges were collected based on the average consumption obtained while the meter was working. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount claimed by opposite parties?

    

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

    

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?

In support of the complaint, wife of the complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and has marked Exts. P1 to P5. In rebuttal, 2^nd opposite party has filed affidavit. Opposite parties did not furnish any documents.

4. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.UPW/3108/N. It has been the case of the complainant that the water from the said connection has been used for domestic purpose, that there is a well in the compound of his house from which water has been taken for service station, that opposite parties had issued bills – bill dated 15/3/03 (Ext. P1) for Rs.24,678/-, bill dated 2/6/03 for Rs.27,124/- (Ext. P2), bill dated 19/12/03 for Rs. 31,545/- (Ext. P3) – claiming excess charges from the complainant. Against the Ext. P1 bill, complainant lodged petitions to opposite parties by Ext. P4 series for immediate rectification but opposite parties had not taken any action positively to rectify the same. It has also been the case of the complainant that complainant had already remitted Rs. 25,302/- and the issuance of Ext. P2 was without any base. It is further submitted by the complainant that he is liable to remit Rs.157/- per month, since the water is used for domestic purpose. Further the aforesaid bills were issued by opposite parties without recording the meter reading. It is argued by the complainant that there is another connection in the same compound, in the name of one Sukumaran and others and the water meter in the said connection was damaged thereby there was leakage of water and the said Sukumaran had sold the said property to stranger and thereby they purposely evaded from remitting water charges. A perusal of Exts. P1 to P3 would reveal that the said bills are prepared by opposite parties without recording meter reading. As per Ext. P1, consumer class is non-domestic and status of the meter is not working. Average consumption recorded is 22.4kl. While in Ext.P2 the status of meter recorded is 'working'. As per Ext. P3, status of the meter recorded is 'observation reading'. In Ext. P3 it is seen recorded that previous reading as on 6/6/03 is 5kl while the present reading as on 15/10/03 is 11kl. Average KL recorded is 21.3kl, monthly charges mentioned is Rs.157 + 2. Ext. P5 series are receipts. As per Ext. P5 series, complainant had remitted Rs. 3,000/- on 18/5/99, Rs.2,000/- on 7/7/99, Rs. 2,000/- on 20/12/99, Rs. 2,000/- on 22/2/2000, Rs. 2,000/- on 20/3/2000, Rs. 2,000/- on 12/3/02 & Rs.2,040/- on 30/4/02. Ext. P4 series are the copies of various representations to opposite parties made by the complainant seeking remedial action. It is submitted by opposite parties that the water connection to consumer No.UPW/3108/N was given from a common service main that the water meter of the said connection was not working, though there was enough water pressure in the connection. It is further argued by opposite parties that consumer was directed to fix a new meter as per the order of Executive Engineer; It is further submitted that a service station is working in the premises, and water is using for service station purpose also, but it is admitted by opposite parties that there is a well in the same compound. It is pertinent to point out that the aforesaid connection is categorised under non-domestic as per Exts. P1 to P3. No prior documents including PIC furnished by the complainant. Opposite parties did not furnish any documents including meter reading register to show the pattern of meter reading in the said connection. It is argued by opposite parties that as against the petition lodged by the consumer of 2/2002, the Executive Engineer had ordered to service the bill of the consumer by fixing 48 kl as PIC and fine during the period from 10/86 to 2/2002 was waived. It is to be pointed out that had opposite parties taken meter reading timely and issued adjustment bill then and there, accumulation of huge amount would never occur and the same would never saddle the consumer. There is no evidence on the part of opposite parties to show the mode of calculation of arrears upto 5/03. In the version filed in 2003 it is seen admitted by opposite parties that the water charges for the consumer at present based on the new meter readings – that is, Rs. 159/- per month. The argument of opposite partis that the previous meter of the consumer was not working and the charges were collected based on the average consumption obtained while the meter was working – has no basis, without supporting evidence. Opposite parties have not succeeded in establishing the contentions in the version with cogent and clinching evidence. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In view of the foregoing discussions and of evidence available on records, we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if opposite parties are directed to collect water charge at the rate of Rs. 159/- per month from the consumer. During the pendency of the complaint, complainant has filed a petition (IA No. 305/2008) to restore water connection being cut due to road widening and the same was allowed on direction that complainant shall remit Rs. 3,000/- to opposite parties and shall bear the cost of the licensed plumber for reconnection. We do not know the present position of the consumer number UPW/3108/N, whether connection restored or not.

In the result, complaint is allowed. The bills dated 15/3/03, 2/6/2003 & 19/12/2003 issued by opposite parties (Exts. P1 to P3) are quashed. Opposite parties shall raise fresh bill on the basis of average consumption of 21.3kl per month (that is, Rs. 157/- +2 per month). The amount remitted by the complainant during the said period shall be adjusted and excess amounts, if any, remitted by the complainant shall be refunded/adjusted in the subsequent future bills. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Parties are directed to bear and suffer their respective 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 15^th day of May, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

O.P.No.257/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness

PW1 : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of consumer bill dated 15/03/2003

P2 : " " 2/06/2003

P3 : " " 19/12/2003

P4 : " letter dated 31/03/2003.

P5 : " receipts

P6 : : letter dated 26/6/2003

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT