Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/355

ASSISTANT ENGINEER KERALA WATER AUTHORITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

VASUDEVAN V - Opp.Party(s)

ISSAC SAMUEL

05 Mar 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 355/2016

JUDGMENT DATED : 05.03.2019

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.239/2014

on the file of CDRF, Malappuram)

PRESENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        :JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

SRI.RANJIT.R                          :MEMBER

 

 

APPELLANT

 

The Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Chandakkunnu Post, Nilambur.P.H.Sub Division, Manjeri, Malappuram District,

        Pin Code – 679 329

 

                        (By Adv.Sri.Issac Samuel)

 

 

                                        VS

 

RESPONDENT

 

Vasudevan.V, Vilayil veedu, Mayyanthani, Chandakkunnu Post, Nilambur, Malappuram District – 679 329

 

(Pathiripally.Adv.Smt.S.Krishna Kumari &

Adv.Swapana C Nair)

 

 

JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        :JUDICIAL MEMBER

                 The opposite party in CC.No.239/2014 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram, in short, the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the district forum by which Exts.A2 & A8 bills issued by them are cancelled and they were directed to pay Rs 10,000/- as compensation and Rs 5000/- as cost to the complainant.

 

                     2.        The averments contained in the complaint are in brief as follows. The complainant had availed water connection of the opposite party on 06.06.2005 with consumer no.2134NBR. From 2005 to 2014 December he had paid the entire amount for the water used by him. Till 13.06.2014  no intimation was given by the opposite party to the complainant regarding any additional bill which is to be cleared by the complainant. On 13.06.2014 he was served with a notice by the opposite party directing him to pay an additional amount of Rs 45,140/- for the water used by him for the period from May, 2009 till May, 2014. But the notice seems to be silent regarding the basis of the said bill. As per law Water authority is responsible for the works connected with the supply of water and the authorities are duty bound to fix the monthly rate of water charge of consumer based on his average consumption of water. The authority is also entitled to refix the monthly slab on the basis of the user of water for six months immediately preceding the fixation. The fixation of the huge amount as the arrears of water charge by the opposite party is baseless and illegal. On 01.07.2014 expressing the grievance of the complainant a notice was issued to the opposite party. The complainant is an ex-military person who is now employed in Kerala State Financial Enterprises. The amount fixed by the opposite party as arrears of water charge is very huge and the complainant is not in a position to pay off such huge amount. Therefore the complainant prayed for cancellation of the additional bill served on him by the opposite party showing the arrears of water charge and the opposite party may be directed to pay the compensation of Rs 25,000/- to complainant for the hardships caused to him on account of the illegal act of opposite party.

 

                     3.        Opposite party filed version raising the following contentions. It is true that the complainant is a consumer having consumer no.2134NBR and he was availing water for his household affairs. It is false to say that the bill for Rs 45,140/- for the arrears of water charge for the period from 2005 to 2014 was baselss and illegal. The amount paid by the complainant is not for the water used by him during the period. The complainant had filed an application before the office of the opposite party for testing the water meter installed in the premises of the complainant. The meter was disconnected and that was taken to the office of Water authority, Malappuram for testing the same. On testing, it was found that the said meter shows 12.04% excess reading therein. Therefore the earlier additional bill for arrears of the water charge was revised by the opposite party in the light of the defect in the meter and a fresh bill for Rs 32,940/- was served on complainant. The complainant was also convinced of the defect in his meter and his liability to pay the arrears of water charges shown in the second notice. Earlier the average consumption of water by complainant was 67KL per month. Since the meter was defective, considering the excess reading shown in the meter bill was revised and fixed at Rs 32,940/-  and that was served on him. In the light of the defect in the meter the average consumption of water by the complainant was found to be 59 KL per month instead of 67KL per month and that is why the bill was revised to Rs 34,940/- as the arrears of water charges for the above period. It is true that the water connection of the complainant was not restored. Only on payment of the fees for reconnection, the amount in the additional bill and also after fitting new meter in the place of defective meter, the connection could be restored and complainant was informed of these facts. But still he neglected to pay the reconnection fee, the arrears of water charge shown in the revised bill and failed to take steps for reconnection or restoration of connection. Therefore it is evident from the conduct of complainant that it was due to his failure in taking steps for restoring the connection, the connection could not be restored. The opposite party has no personal enmity towards the complainant. Even after placing these disputes in the adalath he did not take care to be present in the adalath for settling the matter. There was no latches on the part of the opposite party in providing efficient service to complainant. Therefore the complaint is to be dismissed.

 

                     4.        The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on his side. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the parties.

 

                     5.        Considering the evidence adduced by the complainant and hearing both sides the district forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the opposite party has preferred the present appeal.

 

                     6.        Heard both sides. Perused the records.

                     7.        There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and he was using the water for his house hold affairs. Ext.A1 series reveals that the complainant paid water charges from the date of installation till 20.01.2014. During that period no additional bill was issued by the opposite party to the complainant. On 13.06.2014 the opposite party issued Ext.A2 bill for Rs 45,140/- as arrears of water charges for the period from 2005 to 2014. Subsequently after testing the meter as per the request to the complainant the opposite party revised the earlier bill ( Ext.A2) and issued Ext.A8 bill claiming Rs 37,940/- as additional water charges. It is the case of the opposite party that they issued additional bill to the complainant for the water used by him. The district forum noted that as per Clause 5(1) of Ext.A13 in village areas the meter reading will be taken by the authority in every six months. Admittedly in the present case the opposite party has no case that they had taken meter reading of the complainant for the period from 2005 to 2014 as provided in Ext.A13. That shows the negligence and service deficiency o n the part of the opposite party. The district forum observed that if the opposite party had applied that the provisions of Ext.A13 the accumulated arrears would have been avoided and on account of the negligence of the opposite party, the poor consumer, the complainant could not be penalized. As found by the district forum, no explanation was given by the opposite party on what basis they prepared Exs.A2 & A8 bills. From those two documents it cannot be ascertained the charges for the consumption of water in each month. The opposite party neglected to appear before the forum to given clarifications on the above documents and their prompt service. The district forum observed that the opposite party failed to cross examine the complainant and inspite of several opportunities granted the opposite party did not adduce any evidence. As found by the district forum if the opposite party wanted to realise the amount for the service rendered by them to the consumers their services should be proper and prompt and due to the negligence and defective service of the opposite party mental agony was caused to the complainant. The issuance of additional bills for huge amount caused shock on the complainant. The district forum observed that even after filing of the complaint the opposite party appeared to have taken a lukeworm attitude towards the problem of the consumer, complainant. Even after giving many opportunities for the opposite party they did not care to cross examine the complainant or to adduce evidence on their behalf.  Considering all these aspects the District forum found that Exts. A2 & A8 bills are prepared without any basis and they are liable to be set aside and for the mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the defective service of the opposite party, he is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party. We consider that there is no reason / ground to interfere with the observation, finding and the order of the district forum by which Exts.A2 & A8 bills are set aside.

 

                     8.        The district forum directed the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs 10,000/- and cost of Rs 5000/- to the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we consider that the compensation and cost ordered by the district forum are to be reduced to Rs 5000/- and Rs 2500/- respectively. The order passed by the district forum is to be modified to that effect.

                     In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order passed by the district forum, regarding the compensation and cost is modified as follows. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs 5000/- as compensation, Rs 2500/- as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of the copy of the receipt of the judgment.

 

                     The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                     At the time of filing of the appeal the appellant has deposited Rs 7500/-. The respondent / complainant is permitted to obtain release of the said amount, on proper application, to be adjusted towards the compensation and cost ordered, as above.

 

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH      : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT.R                 : MEMBER

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 355/2016

JUDGMENT DATED :05.03.2019