IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday, the 30th day of July, 2016
Filed on 28.01.2016
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
CC/No.35/2016
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt. Grace Thomas 1. M/s. Kerala Water Authority
W/o Thomas George Jalabhavan, Vellayambalam
Vallyezham House Thiruvananthapuram
Arattuvazhy, Alappuzha represented by the Chief Engineer (By Adv. Cheriyan Kuruvila)
2. The Asst. Executive Engineer
Kerala Water Authority
P.H. Division, Alappuzha Section Alappuzha
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant is enjoying a domestic connection of the Kerala Water Authority vide meter No. 11118191 and consumer No.AWS 2399 D, in the name of her husband Thomas George to his residence. He is employed abroad in KSA. Though the house and the water connection are in the name of Thomas George, husband of the complainant, since the complainant resides in the house and is paying all tax, cess and charges including the bill amount to the Water Authority for consuming water, she is legally competent to sign and present the complaint as the consumer. The complainant has been paying water charges regularly, without fail up to February 2014. The normal bimonthly bill since then was below Rs.200/-. However, the bills were issued by the opposite parties from the month of April 2014 is not in consonance with the consumption of water by the complainant. The last bill was issued on 18.12.2015 claiming an additional amount of Rs.83,577/- and bimonthly water charges 76/- the total amounting to Rs.83,653/-. There is no justification in the demand, but illegality is involved in the levy of water charges from the complainant. The complainant made representations to the 2nd opposite party on several times, but there is no explanation from the part of the opposite parties for levying huge additional amount. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed.
2. Notice issued to the opposite parties served. The opposite parties 1 and 2 represented, and prays for version, but thereafter they did not turn up, hence the opposite parties 1 and 2 were set ex-parte.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A13.
5. The points for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so the reliefs and costs?
6. According to the complainant, she had been paying water charges regularly without default up to February 2014. The normal by-monthly bill since then was below Rs.200/-. But the bills issued by the opposite parties from the month of April 2014 is not in consonants with the consumption of water. The last bill was issued on 18.12.2015 claiming an additional amount of Rs.83,577/- and by-monthly water charges Rs.76/- the total amounting to Rs.83,653/-. In order to substantiate her allegation, the complainant has produced the bills issued during these months. The bills were marked as Exts.A1 to A10. According to the complainant she was residing alone in the house and there had been no event or possibility to use such huge quantity of water leading to the issuance of excessive bills. So, the claim made by the opposite parties not in accordance with the consumption of water. Apart from that in the bill dated 14.10.2015 Ext.A8 the spot biller has made a foot note that, “The bill amount is massive, contact K.W.A. office forthwith.” According to the complainant she met the 2nd opposite party and the billing officer, though they admitted that such a huge bill amount is unlikely for a domestic connection nothing was done to rectify the mistakes in the bill. Ext.A11 letter dated 30.4.2014, Ext.A12 letter dated 28.10.2014 and Ext.A13 letter dated 14.12.2015 are the representations made by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Even though she made so many representations to the opposite parties, there is no explanation from the part of the opposite parties for levying huge additional amount. The affidavit filed by the complainant is not challenged by the opposite parties. The failure on the part of the opposite parties in considering the representations made by the complainant, amounts to deficiency in service. It is true that the acts of the opposite parties caused much mental agony to the complainant.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to consider the representations of the complainant and issue a fresh bill for water actually consumed by the complainant and quash the bills issued since 25.4.2014 till 18.12.2015 to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Dictated to the Confidential Asst. transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Bill dated 20.6.2014
Ext.A2 - Bill dated 19.6.2014
Ext.A3 - Bill dated 17.10.2014
Ext.A4 - Bill dated 19.12.2014
Ext.A5 - Bill dated 20.2.2015
Ext.A6 - Bill dated 22.4.2015
Ext.A7 - Bill dated 20.8.2015
Ext.A8 - Bill dated 14.10.2015
Ext.A9 - Bill dated 18.12.2015
Ext.A10 - Bill dated 20.6.2014
Ext.A11 - Copy of letter dated 30.4.2014
Ext.A12 - Copy of letter dated 28.10.2014
Ext.A13 - Copy of letter dated 14.12.2015
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
