IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.29/06 Between: George Abraham, S/o. Late P.C. Abraham, Puthenparampil, Kattukkara, Thiruvalla. (By Adv. George. K. Mathew) ..... Complainant. And: - The Secretary,
Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram (By Adv. Abraham George Pachayil) - The Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority, Pathanamthitta. - The Asst. Exe.Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Sub Division. No.II, Thiruvalla. (By Adv. N.K. Chandrasekharan Nair) .... Opposite parties. O R D E R Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from Forum. 2. The complainant is a consumer of opposite parties; he is having a water connection with Consumer No.T685. The connection was taken in the name of the complainant’s father. Since from the death of her father, in the year 1992, the complainant is residing in the said home and he is using the water connection. So he is competent to file this complaint. The complainant was regularly paying the water charges till October 2003. On 27.1.06 the complainant received a notice issued by the 3rd opposite party demanding to pay an amount of Rs.16,403/- as arrears for the period from 3/1998 to 2/04. The above said notice issued by the opposite party is arbitrary and against natural justice and without any legal basis. After receiving the notice the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party and denied the arrears demanded against him. The opposite parties demanded to pay the bill-dated 4.1.06 on or before 22.1.06 otherwise they will disconnect the water connection without any notice. It will cause irreparable injury and hardships to the complainant. The issuance of the exorbitant bill is a deficiency in service and is an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence he filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting an order for directing the opposite parties to set aside the bill dated 4.1.06 and for allowing cost and compensation to the complainant. The complainant prays for granting the reliefs. 3. The 2nd opposite party has filed a common version with the following contentions: The opposite parties main contention is that the water connection is in the name of the complainant’s deceased father, the ownership of the water connection has not been transferred to the name of the complainant. So he has no legal right to file this complaint. The complainant had remitted the minimum water charge of Rs.22/- per month without ascertaining the actual consumption of water every month till 10/03. Water meter is found faulty from 8/04 onwards. The notice has already been sent to the complainant on 9/04 and 10/06. The complainant was aware of the arrears. When the complainant came to the office he deliberately concealed the death of the original consumer. After receiving the notice-dated 17.1.06 the complainant approached the opposite parties for reducing the arrear amount. The bill amount cannot be reduced because it was prepared for the actual consumption of water. There is a contract between the consumer and water authority. As per the contract all dues that may become payable by the consumer under or by virtue of their agreement otherwise are recoverable from the properties of the consumer both movable and immovable under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act. Monthly water charges cannot be remitted without remitting the excess bill. The excess bill is the charges of additional consumption of water ascertained on the basis of meter reading. The consumer is liable to pay the additional charges on demand. The serving of the bill in question is not a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The opposite parties have the right to collect excess charges for using excess water. The complainant has been using the water from 10/03 onwards without any payment. The complainant is liable to pay the excess amount demanded by them otherwise they have the right to disconnect the water connection without any notice. The complainant is liable to pay the arrear bill amount to the opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. On the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Relief & Costs? 5. The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit and 4 documents filed by the complainant from his side. On the basis of the proof affidavit he was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. For the opposite parties, 3rd opposite party has filed a proof affidavit along with one document. On the basis of the proof affidavit, 3rd opposite party was examined as DW1 and the document produced is marked as Ext.B1. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard. 6. Point No.1:- The water connection, Consumer No.T685, is in the name of P.C. Abraham, who is the father of the complainant. After his death the complainant succeeds the ownership of the water connection. Opposite parties have not challenged the complainant’s right to use the connection. As a beneficiary of the water connection he is a consumer of opposite parties and he has the right to file this complaint. Hence this complaint is maintainable before the Forum. 7. Point Nos.2 & 3:- The complainant’s case is that the bill (demand notice) issued by the opposite parties on 4.1.06 for an amount of Rs.16,403/- as arrears of water charges for the period 3/98 to 2/04 were arbitrary and against natural justice. Hence it is liable to be cancelled. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint for getting the reliefs as sought for in the complaint. 8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 were marked. Ext.A1 is the demand notice (bill) for an amount of Rs.18,266/- (not dated) issued by the 3rd opposite party as the arrears of water charges. Ext.A2 is the Provisional Invoice card of the Con.No.T685 in the name of the complainant’s father. Ext.A3 series are the receipts for the remittance of water charge bills dated 3/03 and 9/03. Ext.A4 is the complaint filed by the complainant on 27.1.06 before the 3rd opposite party. The opposite parties counsel has cross-examined PW1. 9. According to the opposite parties the bill issued on 17.1.06 is the arrears of the water charges for the excess consumption of water from 3/98 to 2/04. The opposite parties have the right to issue the excess bill and the complaint is liable to remit the bill amount as per the contract between the complainant and opposite parties. 10. In order to prove the contentions of opposite parties, 3rd opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Ext.B1 marked. Ext.B1 is the copy of Consumer Personal Ledger. Complainant’s counsel cross-examined DW1. 11. The complainant’s case is that the exorbitant bill dated 4.1.06 for Rs.16,403/- issued by the 3rd opposite party as the arrears of the water charges from 3/98 to 2/04 is arbitrary and without any legal basis hence the complainant prayed for the cancellation of above said bill. On a perusal of the evidence in this case, the complainant has not produced the impugned bill (demand notice) to be cancelled. Ext.A1 is a notice issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant for demanding to remit an amount of Rs.18,266/- to the complainant on or before 22.1.06, otherwise the water connection will be disconnected without any notice. Ext.A1 was issued without date. At the bottom of Ext.A1 there is some endorsement seen as:- “Arrear from 10/03 – 12/05 -- Rs. 1,863/- “Excess bill 3/98 – 2/04 -- Rs.16,403/- ------------------------------ Rs.18,266/- ================ 12. No explanations were given from both sides relating these entries. Moreover in the version 6th Para opposite parties stated that “the arrears notice was issued from water authority office on 17.1.06” to the complainant. The complainant has not produced any bill dated 4.1.06 or 17.1.06 issued by the opposite parties. The complainant’s specific case is that the arrear bill dated 4.1.06 for Rs.16,403/- is illegal and it is liable to be cancelled. The complainant has not produced the alleged bill to be set aside or he has not adduced any cogent evidence for proving his complaint. Without producing the impugned bill for substantiating the complainant’s case, we are not in a position to interfere in this complaint. Thus the complainant failed to prove his complaint and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2010. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : George Abraham Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Demand notice for an amount of Rs.18,266/- issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant. A2 : Provisional Invoice card of the Con.No.T685 in the name of the complainant’s father. A3& A3(a)series : Receipts for the remittance of water charge bills dated 3/03 and 9/03. A4 : Complaint dated 27.1.06 submitted by the complainant before the 3rd opposite party. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : M. Madhu Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Photocopy of the Consumer Personal Ledger. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) George Abraham, Puthenparampil, Kattukkara, Thiruvalla. (2) The Secretary, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram (3) The Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Pathanamthitta. (4) The Asst. Exe.Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Sub Division. No.II, Thiruvalla. (5) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
