CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No 383/09
Thursday the 28th day of July, 2011
Petitioner : Vijayan P.R,
Paravanparambil Veedu,
Punnathura East PO,
Punnathura kara, Kottayam.
(Adv. Bino I.Tom)
Vs.
Opposite party : Muttar Sudhajala Vitharana Society
Punnathura East, Reg.No.K.500/2004
Rep.by its President A.V Anilkumar.
2) A.V.Anilkumar,
Andukunnumpurath House,
Punnathura East PO,Punnathura kara
3) Chackochen,
Perumannoor,
Punnathura East PO,Punnathura kara,
Kottayam(Secretary, Muttar
Sudhajala Vitharana Society)
4) K.R.Sajeev,
Kollamparambil House,
Punnathura East PO,
Punnathura Kara(Vice President
Muttar Sudhajala Virtharana Society)
(Adv. P.C. Emmanuel &Viji Mathew)
ORDER
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
The complainant is an artist. He is a consumer of Muttar drinking water project. For the proper conduction of the said project, the consumers had formed Muttar Drinking Water Society (Reg.No.K500/2004), which is the first opposite party, the President of the said society is the second opposite party, Secretary of the society is the third opposite party, Vice-President of the said society is the fourth opposite party. The fourth opposite party is the person who takes the meter readings of the society’s consumers and issue bills accordingly. At present, for 5000 litres of drinking water consumption Rs.35/- is collected. If the consumption exceeds 5000 litres, for the excess each 1000 litres Rs.10 is collected. The complainant was the secretary of the society and the complainant had raised certain complaints against the ex-administration members of the said society. They are in enemity towards the complainant. In such a condition, the opposite parties issued a demand and disconnection notice dtd 23/10/2009 for Rs.112/- to the complainant. The complainant has not actually consumed 12,449 litres of water and there is no water charge arrears. In the demand cum disconnection notice, the opposite parties had recorded the previous reading as 33,617 and the present meter reading as 21,118. According to the complainant this itself proves that the complainant has not consumed 12,449 litres of water and that the said bill was fraudulently prepared and issued. The complainant averred that he is not liable to pay the said bill amount of Rs.112/-. The complainant filed a complaint before the Ayarkunnam Police Station and they directed the opposite parties to present themselves before the Police Station, two times, but they have not complied the said direction. Further on 7/11/09, as the complainant got a telephonic information from the Police Station, he stopped his artistic works in Kozhikode and reached the Police Station, but the opposite parties took an adamant stand that they will disconnect the water connection. Due to the aforesaid stand taken by the opposite parties the complainant was compelled to pay the demanded amount of Rs.112/-. The complainant insisted for bill and the opposite parties issued a bill. In the said bill dtd 30/10/09 it is recorded that the amount of Rs.112/- is the dues for months 30/08/09, 30/9/09 and 30/10/09. The complainant alleged that the bill dtd 23/10/09 contained no dues. The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties acted as mentioned above in order to make loss and inconvenience to the complainant and to disconnect his water connection. The complainant next alleged that the said acts of the opposite parties caused mental tension, physical difficulties and other kind of losses to him. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming the refund of Rs.112/- illegally collected by the opposite parties, compensation Rs.15,000/- and litigation cost.
The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions
i) This complaint is maintainable either in law or on facts
ii) Meter reading is taken by one employee of the society named baby. The allegation that the meter reader is the third opposite party is false.
iii) The amount demanded is the water charge dues for the months August 2009 to October 2009 amounting to Rs.111/- along with fine amount of Rs.20/-. Eventhough we issued a demand notice for Rs.112/-, it is not for the excess consumption of water, but for the water charge arrears of 3 months
iv) Certain documents of the society were unauthorisedly kept by the complainant so a complaint was filed against him in the police station. The complainant agreed to return the said document but they are still with him.
v) The meter reading shown in the demand notice is the sum total of the total consumption of water for three months
vi) Whenever the police authorities required our presence. We were present but it is the complainant who had absented himself.
vii) There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties
Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them.
Points for consideration are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties and Exts. A1 to A3.
Point No.1
Heard the counsels for both sides and perused the documents placed on record. The original demand & disconnection notice dtd 23/10/09 is produced and marked as Ext.A1. On perusing Ext.A1, it is seen that the present meter reading is recorded as 21,118 and previous reading is recorded as 33,617. The consumption is found by taking the difference between the higher previous meter reading 33,617 and lower present reading 21,118. That itself shows the absurdity of the demand notice. The opposite parties averred that the demanded amount is the total water charge arrear for three months amounting to Rs.111/- along with fine amount Rs.20/-. As per the abovementioned averment, the total demanded amount ought to have been Rs.131/-. But the amount actually demanded by Ext.A1 is only 112/-. What is the reason behind this difference remain unexplained. Further, as contented by the opposite parties if the demanded amount was the water charge arrears for three months, what prevented them from mentioning that in the demand and disconnection notice. Only after receiving the demanded amount of Rs.112/- they issued a bill stating that there was a water charge due for three months. Evidencing the aforesaid issuance of bill, original bill dtd 30-10-09 is produced and marked as Ext.A2. The original bill showing the normal water charge of Rs.35/- is also produced and marked as Ext.A3.
On scanning the exhibits, we find that the opposite parties failed to show in the demand and disconnection notice, the reason for the issuance of such a bill and also failed to explain how they reached at the calculation of Rs.112/- when the normal water charge for a month is Rs.35/-. In our view the opposite parties are unfair in their acts and deficient in their service. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1, the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, the complaint is ordered as follows.
The opposite parties are directed to return the collected amount of Rs.112/- to the complainant alongwith a compensation of Rs.1500/- and litigation cost Rs.500/-.
This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which, the awarded sums will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the complainant
Ext.A1-Original demand and disconnection notice dtd 23/10/09
Ext.A2-Original bill dtd 30/10/09
Ext.A3-Original bill dtd 22/11/09
Documents of the opposite parties
Nil
