IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday, the 31st day of January, 2018
Filed on 05.05.2017.
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.116/2017
Between
Complainant: Opposite parties:
Sri. K.P.Ambujakshan The Sub Engineer
Ashik Bahavan Kerala State Water
VI/743, opposite SBI Authority,
Aroor.P.O Cherthala P.H.Division
Alappuzha Cherthala
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant took a domestic water connection from the opposite party on 11/1/2013. After getting the connection complainant paid Rs. 480 on 11/1/2013 towards advance water charges for one year and Rs. 1420/- on 18/9/2015 towards water charges up to 9/2015. On 18/12/2016 complainant got a demand notice from the opposite party showing by monthly consumption 30 k.ltre. additional amount of Rs. 1537. Thereafter on 12 /4/17 complainant received a demand notice for Rs. 19088/- and also disconnection notice. The demand notice is not legally sustainable. Opposite party is not entitled for disconnection of water connection of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed.
2. Version of the Opposite party is as follows:-
Complainant remitted water charges up to 26/3/2016 as per the minimum Tarrif rate. Meter reading taken on 13/2/17 shows that the complainant is using 1972k.ltr water till that date. Accordingly a bill for Rs 19088/- was given to the complainant on 15/4/2017 for the period from 22-2-13 to 13-1-2017 There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. Complainant filed affidavit along with 2 documents marked as Ext.A1 and A2. Opposite party produced a detailed statement about the bill amount shown
4. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any defect or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs and costs?
5. During the proceedings at the instance of the complainant vide order in IA No.30/17 this Forum directed the opposite party not to disconnect the water connection of the complainant till the disposal of the IA. The opposite party duly honored the order.
6. It is an admitted fact that complainant is a consumer of water in consumer No. ARR/5147/D. Complainant took water connection on 11-1-2013. It is also an admitted fact that complainant remitted water charge at the minimum Tarrif rate at up to 9/2015. According to the complainant on 12/4/2017 he received a demand notice for Rs. 19088/. The statement produced by the opposite party shows that they have taken meter reading on 15/4/17 and as per the meter reading complainant used 2041 K./Ltr water. The reading on 13/2/17 shows that complainant used 1972 k.Ltr . So they have taken the assessment on the basis of the difference in between the reading on 13/2/17 and 15/4/17 ie 2041-1972 = 69 kilo liter for two months. It is pertinent to notice that during the period from 11/1/2013 to 13/2/2017, the opposite party never tried to fix the average consumption of water by taking the meter reading continuously for 6 months as envisaged under the rules. Without doing so they have no right to demand huge amount towards arrears. It is the duty of the opposite party to take periodical readings and intimate about the consumption or revision of the minimum charges. Non availability of the meter readers or other employees is not a ground for justifying their arbitrary actions. It is quit natural that a consumer who pays water charge at Minimum Traiff rate, on a fine morning if receives a bill for Rs.19088 it will be shocking to him. The opposite party is not entitled to make a demand for the arrears for more than 6 months as they are bound to take periodical reading at least once in 6 months. Therefore we find that the above said act of opposite party is not justified and it is a clear deficiency in service. Hence we found that the complainant is not liable to pay amount claimed as per the bill dated 15/4/2017 for Rs. 19088 and the same is set aside. However it has come out in evidence that the complainant was using water through out the period and hence the opposite party is directed to issue a fresh bill for six months water charge at the prevailing rate.
In the result we pass the following order
- Ext.A1 bill dated 12-4-2017 is set aside with a direction to issue fresh bill for six months, water charge at the prevailing rate taking average consumption at 34.5 kilo liter per month.
- Since the primary relief is allowed not further relief as to cost and compensation.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of January, 2018.
Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Ext.A1 - Copy of Receipt dtd. 11/1/2013.
Ext.A2 series - Copy of Receipt dtd. 30/4/2015.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Bibin .P.B (witness)
// True Copy // By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-br/-
Compared by:-
