10.9.2008<br /> OP.260/2001<br /> K.Gopalan,President<br /> This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to cancel bills and to pay compensation along with costs.<br /> The complainant’s case in brief is as follows: The complainant has been paying the water charges in advance for every year. For 6/97 to 5/98 and 7/98 to 6/99 the payment has been endorsed in the provisional invoice card on 23.4.97and 15.7.98. For the period of 7/99 to 6/2000 and 7/2000 to 6/2001 amounts was remitted in advance on 25.6.1999 and 10.7.2000 respectively and endorsed on the invoice card. There was advance payment for the earlier years also. 1st opposite party served a bill dated 8.12.2000 for Rs.1686/- for the period from 7/94 to 6/99. On the same date another bill for Rs.1800/- for the period from 7/99 to 12/99 was also issued. And a notice was also served alleging that the meter fixed was out of order. The complainant issued a lawyer notice denying the liability of both bills. 1st opposite party sent reply on 15.1.2000 alleging that the meter was out of order from 7/94 to 6/97 and that the meter has also out of order with effect from 12/2000. It was also alleged that water was used for the cultivation of plantains which is false. Complainant has no plantain cultivation. She does not own any land. The complainant was never informed that the meter has gone out of order at any time before 8.12.2000. Without such notice it is illegal to say the meter was not working from 7/94 to6/97. Who has repaired the meter is also not mentioned. It cannot be made without the knowledge of consumer. This story of repair is to justify illegal demand. The opposite party has to read the meter every 6 months. If it is not done consumer cannot be penalized. The notices served would appear that no meter reading has been done for about 6 years. If the first bill was true notice should have been issued in the year 1999. 1st opposite party did not disclose when he inspected last prior to 8.12.2000. The present demand for more than 6 months is illegal. The complainant is not liable to pay any amount demanded for more than 6 months. The date of previous reading is not disclosed. No date is given for dividing the quantity consumed by 6 months. It was meant for the period up to 8.12.2000. The bill of 2/2000 is imaginary and it is served after 10 months which is illegal. The date of the first notice is shown as 10/99 but the same served on 8.12.2000 along with second bill. Both the bills are without any basis. The complainant sent second notice on 19.3.2001 denying her liability.1st opposite party sent reply to that notice on 18.6.2001 containing false averments and justifying the bills. The statement in the disputed bills that the complainant had used 416KL from 7/99 to 12/99 is evidently quite unfounded. The statement that the complainant had used 69000 litters per month for a period of 5 months is quite imaginary and baseless. There would not have been that much water supplied in the entire area during that time. Complainant’s house is situated on a higher summit. It is not possible for opposite parties to supply such a huge quantity of water in such a higher level by small pipes. The complainant stated that the 1st opposite party issued to supply water in complainant’s area only thrice in a week that too for three hours a day. So there is no question of consumption of that much water. The bill does not represent the actual consumption. The complainant had made payments regularly in accordance with actual consumption. The bills were wrongly issued and not binding up on the complainant pending the above petition the opposite parties collected water charges as per bill No.28762 for Rs.3769/- dt.4.12.2001, Receipt issued for Rs.1800/- dt.24.1.2001 receipt issued for Rs.1686/-dt.24.1.2001. Receipt issued for Rs.3600/- on 24.1.2002, receipt issued for Rs.2284/- dt.24.1.2002, Receipt issued for Rs.10/- on 24.1.2002, receipt for Rs.10/- on 24.1.2002. The complainant paid all the bills under protest. The following bills at 25.2.2002 for Rs.422/-, dt.25.3.3002 for Rs.322/- and Rs.322/- each on 24.1.2002, 23.5.2002 and 25.6.2006 are illegal excess billing that amounts to the deficiency in service. Hence the above said bills and payments are to be cancelled. Complainant estimates Rs.5000/- as compensation.<br /> Pursuant to the notice issued by this Forum, opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable in law. Opposite parties admits that the complainant is a consumer and she had paid water charges in advance which were provisional water charges. The 1st opposite party had served two additional water charge bills for excess consumption for Rs.1686/- and Rs.1800/-. A notice was served in12/2000 to the complainant to replace his water meter. The complainant had paid only the provisional water charges and it is lawful on the part of the 1st opposite party to issue the additional bills if the consumption is exceeding the limit. The bill number 36561 the minimum water charges are claimed for the period from 7/94 to 6/97 and there after from 7/97 to 6/99 the water charges are fixed according to the average consumption. The amount claimed in the additional bills is calculated after deducting the amount already paid by the complainant. Opposite parties claimed the amount which is prepared on the basis of meter reading depended on consumption. Water meter during the period from 7/94 to 6/97 was defective. So minimum charges only claimed. The meter was repaired by the consumer tested and fitted on 14.7.97 and there after bill was issued as per the reading in water meter. It was seen that the consumer was using house pipe for plantain cultivation the complainant was instructed to stop it. This misuse has increased the consumption of water. The averments that the complainant was not given intimation regarding the defect of water meter prior to 8.12.2000 are not true. The complainant was given notice on 6/95 and the meter was repaired by the consumer and tested and fitted on 14.7.97 and the meter was working well up to 12/2000. The opposite party received lawyer notice. In the reply it was informed that the additional bills were issued based on meter reading. The complainant pretended ignorance about repair of the meter. The averment that the meter was not inspected for over 6 months is not true. The averment that complainant had not used416 KL of water for the period from 7/99 to 12/99 is not correct. The meter was inspected on 7/94, 6/95, 2/96, 8/96, 3/97, 10/97, 4/98, 11/98, 6/99, 12/99, 6/2000 and on 12/2000. The additional bills are prepared on the basis of meter readings. Actual meter reading was taken once in six months and prepared additional b ills as per actual consumption. It is true that the complainant remitted water charges from 12/2000 to 1/2002 along with arrear bills for 7/94, 6/99, 7/99, 12/99 and 1/2000 to 12/2000. The complainant has realized about the accuracy and genuineness of the bill. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties.<br /> The matter was once decided and complaint was allowed directing to cancel the bills dt.8.12.2000 and also to refund Rs.14, 768/- and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2000/- along with cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. Appeal was preferred and thereby the order dated 29.10.04 of this Forum set aside and the matter remitted back for fresh consideration and disposal. Both parties are given liberty to adduce further evidence in support of their respective pleadings. The case posted for the appearance of parties before the Forum on 28.3.08. The pending E.P closed and reopened the OP. Opposite parties were issued notice. Opposite parties received notice but did not take care to appear before the Forum in subsequent posting dates also. Acknowledgement serving notice to opposite parties received by the Forum. Since the opposite parties were properly served opposite parties were called absent and set exparte. The matter was posted for evidence on 14.8.08. Matter was called on 14.8.08 and complainant adduced no further evidence instead filed argument notes.<br /> On the pleadings placed above the following issues were taken for consideration:<br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency in-service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation? If so the quantum?<br /> The evidences consist of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A13 marked.<br /> Issue Nos. 1 & 2<br /> Admittedly complainant is a consumer of opposite parties who has been paying water charges in advance for every year. The payment was endorsed in the provisional invoice card on 23.4.97 and 15.7.98.For the period from 7/99 to 6/2000 and 7/2000 to 6/2001 the amount was remitted on 25.6.99and 10.7.2000. Ext.A2 bill dated 18.12.2000 for Rs.1686/- towards water charges from 7/94 to 6/99 and Ext.A3 on the same date for Rs.1800/- for the period for 7/99 to 12/99 were served to complainant. Ext.A4 notice was also served to the effect that the meter fixed for the water connection was out of order with effect from 12/2000. The complainant issued lawyer notice Ext.A5 (copy) on 23.12.2000. Opposite parties sent Ext.A6 reply on 15.1.2001 alleging that the meter was out of order from 7/94 to 6/97 and again gone out of order with effect from 12/2000. It was also alleged that the complainant had been using water for cultivation of plantain. Ext.A7 lawyer notice sent as reply to Ext.a6 denying her liability. Opposite parties reply to Ext.A7 which is marked as Ext.A8 reiterated that the bill issued are correct. Aggrieved by this complainant filed this complaint.<br /> Pending the case opposite parties issued bills for exorbitant amount out of animosity without any basis and the complainant on apprehension of disconnection remitted the amount of Rs.14,768/- under protest. As per the same complainant was charged Rs.322/- per month for which there is no evidence.<br /> The complainant is paying water charges as per slab system. As per the kerala water Authority (water supply) /Regulations 1991, the meter reading of a subscriber of slab system is to be taken in every six months and as per regulation 13(3) _ if the water charges already remitted by the consumer is found to be in excess or short based on the meter reading taken subsequently, the consumer shall pay to the authority, the amount short remitted and the authority shall adjust the amount collected the excess from the consumer in the subsequent payments. An adjustment bill in Form No.IX shall be issued once in every six months to the consumer immediately the excess or short remitted by the consumer. Authority is liable as per regulation 13d) to issue an adjustment bill in Form No.IX once in every six months. It can be seen that Ext.A2 dt.8.12.2000 water charge is claimed for 5 years from 7/94 to 6/99. So also Ext.A3 for the period of 7/99 to 12/99 was served only on 8.12.2000 instead of 6/2000 as per the regulation. It is quite evident that the bills Ext.A2 and A3 issued by the opposite parties are not in accordance with the regulations. The opposite parties are bound to give intimation to the complainant prior to 8.12.2000 if the meter was default. Opposite party contended that notice was issued. But no document seen produced to prove it. Opposite parties are not entitled to make demand without issuing proper notice as per regulation. Ext.A6 is an admission that the delay of issuing bills was due to the shortage of staff. <br /> Opposite parties have the case that the complainant has been using water for plantain, other than drinking purpose? Ext.A9 reveals that the complainant’s property having only an extent of 9 cents, which also consists of her residential house. This proves the opposite parties allegation is baseless. <br /> During the pendency of the com plaint the opposite parties issued Ext.A11 and A12 series. These bills were isued based on actual consumption. Complainant paid <br /> Rs, 14,768/- under protest only to avoid disconnection. Opposite party could not explain how they arrived at that much amount claimed in Exts. .A11 and A12 series. No supporting evidences placed by the opposite parties to substantiate the claim amount<br /> Ext.A11 and 12 were issued to complainant during the pendency of the complaint. The complainant alleged that the bills were issued not based on actual consumption but remitted the amount only to avoid disconnection. Opposite parties could not produce enough evidence to prove the claim amount. It has come in evidences that the complainant is having well and pump. It is quite natural that in the usual course village families give preference to water from the well than that of the pipe water. Complainant having only 9 cents of land, where there is residential house with well and pump in the ordinary course will not require such an enormous quantity of water. Opposite parties are not able to establish their claim with sufficient evidence. In the cross examination of PW1 it has come out thus: ‘<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> This aspect should also be taken into consideration weighing evidence regarding the actual consumption of water. The possibility of consumption of this much quantity of water is quite doubtful. The opposite parties have the burden to prove it. It is not understandable why they are not taking interest even after the matter being remanded to establish the case. It has been specifically printed out in the order of the Hon’ble state Commission that both parties will be at liberty to adduce further evidences in support of their respective pleadings.<br /> Opposite parties did not appear before the Forum on the day fixed by the Hon’ble State Commission. Thereafter Forum sent registered notice. Notice received by the opposite parties and acknowledgement returned but opposite parties never cared to appear before the Forum so as to give further evidences. Forum has no other go except proceeding further in the absence of opposite parties. Complainant was heard. We are of the opinion that in the ordinary course a family need not consume that much quantity of water of 69000 liters per month. It only shows negligence on the part of opposite parties. Until and unless the opposite parties adduce evidence with support of necessary documents to substantiate their contentions, the complainant is entitled for compensation. The evidence at present stands before the Forum proves gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Thus the issues found against opposite parties. <br /> In the light of the above discussion taking into account the available evidence and circumstances we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled to get cancel Ext.A2 and A3 bills dt.8.12.2000. The opposite parties are also liable to refund the amount of Rs.14, 768/- collected from the complainant along with a cost of Rs.1500/-.<br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to cancel Ext.A2 and A3 dt.8.12.2000 and to refund Rs,.14,768/-(Rupees Fourteen thousand seven hundred and sixty eight only) together with Rs.1500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite parties under the provisions of the consumer protection Act.<br /> <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- <br /> President Member Member<br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1Provisional invoice cared issued by OP<br /> A2. & A3.Bills dt.8.12.00 issued by OP<br /> A4.Letter dt.8.12.2000 issued by OP to complainant<br /> A5.Copy of the lawyer notice dt.23.12.2000 sent to OP<br /> A6.Reply notice dt.15.1.01 issued by OP to Advocate<br /> A7.copy of the lawyer notice dt.19.3.2000 sent to OP<br /> A8. Reply dt.18.6.2001 sent by OP2.<br /> A9.copy of the Jenmum assignment deed<br /> A10.Attesed photo copy of the tax receipt<br /> A11.Bill dt.4.12.01 issued by OP<br /> A12.series.Receipt issued by OP’s nd Janasevana Kendram.<br /> A13.Copy of the lawyer notice dt.29.3.02 sent to Ops<br /> Exhibits for the opposite parties Nil<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1.A.K.Narayanan kutty.<br /> Witness examined for the opposite parties<br /> DW1.Valsan.M<br /> <br /> <br /> /forwarded by order/<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br /> Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur<br />