By Sri. A. A. Vijayan, President
The Petitioner filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
The summary of the grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. 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 on 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 the consumer based on his average consumption of water. The Authority is also entitled to re-fix the monthly slab on the basis of the user of water for six months immediately preceeding the fixation.
2. 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 cause to him on account of the illegal act of opposite party.
3. The opposite party filed counter on the complaint stating as follows:-
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 baseless 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 the 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 59KL per month instead of 67KL per month and that is why the bill was revised to Rs.32,940/- as the arrears of water charge for the above period. It is true that the water connection of the complainant was not restored.
4. 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. This 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 opposite party in providing efficient service to complainant. Therefore the complaint is to be dismissed.
5. The points arise for consideration are:-
(i) Whether there was any deficient service on the part of the
opposite party as alleged?
(ii) Whether the additional bill for Rs.32,940/- is legally sustainable?
(iii) Whether complainant is entitled to get compensation as claimed?
(iv) Reliefs and costs?
6. Points No.(i) to (iii):-
Though complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A14 were marked, the opposite party failed to appear and cross examine him. In spite of several chances granted to opposite party no evidence was adduced by him.
7. Ext.A1 series reveals that he has paid water charges from the date of installation till 20-01-2014. During this period no additional bill had been issued by opposite party to complainant. Ext.A13 is a document issued by the opposite party titled as “പൌരാവകാശ രേഖ" . This was issued to inform the general public the rights of the Consumers and the duties of Water Authority. In clause 5(i) of this document it is stated that in Village areas the meter reading will be taken by the authority in every six months. This indicates that the opposite party is duty bound for recording the meter reading of every consumer in the Village area in every six months. Admittedly, in the present case the opposite party has no case that it has taken any meter reading for the period from 2005-2014 as provided in Ext.A13. That shows culpable negligence and service deficiency on the part of the opposite party. If the opposite party had complied with the provisions in Ext.A13 the accumulation of arrears could have been avoided. On account of the negligence of opposite party the poor consumer could not be penalized.
8. It is also significant to show hat no explanation was given by the opposite party on what basis they prepared Ext.A2 bill for Rs.45,140/ and Ext.A8, the additional bill for Rs.32,940/-. From these two documents it cannot be ascertained the charges for the consumption of water for each month. Moreover the opposite party neglected to appear before this Forum to give clarifications on the above documents and their prompt service. It is to be kept in mind that the opposite party is not an ordinary Citizen but a representative of Government Department. When they want to realize the amount for the service rendered by them to the consumers their service should be proper and prompt. In the present case due to the apparent negligence and culpable defective service of the opposite party a system itself is found to be ruined keeping a poor consumer in uncertainty. The mental agony suffered by the consumer due to sudden shock excerted on them by such additional bills for huge amount due to mismanagement of the opposite party shall not be left unnoticed. Thus due to the latches on the part of opposite party the consumer will be constrained to run after pillar to post to redress their grievance. It is also significant to note that even after filing the complaint the opposite party appeared to have taken a lukewarm attitude towards the problem of their consumers, as seen in this case. Even after giving many opportunities for the opposite party they did not even care to either cross examine the complainant or adduce evidence on their behalf. Considering these circumstances the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that Exts.A2 and A8 bills are prepared without any basis and they are liable to be set aside. The water connection which was dismantled by the opposite party was restored as per order in I.A.117/15. That is made absolute. In addition to that the complainant is perfectly entitled to get compensation for mental agony suffered by him due to the defective service of the opposite party. Though complainant requested for Rs.25,000/- as compensation we hold that Rs.10,000/- is sufficient to do justice to the parties. Points are answered accordingly.
9. Point No.(iv):-
On the basis of findings on the above points we allow the complaint and Ext.A2 and A8 bills issued by the opposite party are set aside. The opposite party is also liable to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant and that should either be directly paid to the complainant or be adjusted towards subsequent water charges. Opposite party is liable to pay cost of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.
Dated this 10th day of March, 2016.
A. A. VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A15
Ext.A1series : Photo copy of the payment schedules (8 Nos.) by opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the Bill No.1982 dated, 13-06-2014 for Rs.45,140/- issued by
opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A3 : Carbon copy of request dated, 01-07-2014 by complainant to opposite party.
Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the Application dated, 05-07-2014 for Meter Testing.
Ext.A5 : Photo copy of the Receipt dated, 05-07-2014 for Rs.22/- by opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A6 : Photo copy of the request dated, 16-07-2014 by complainant to opposite party.
Ext.A7 : Photo copy of the Meter Test Report from opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A8 : Photo copy of the revised bill dated, 05-08-2014 for Rs.32,940/- issued by
opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A9 : Photo copy of the Request to Right of Information Act dated, 17-07-2014 by complainant to opposite party.
Ext.A10 : Photo copy of the Request dated, 01-09-2014 by complainant to opposite party.
Ext.A11 : Photo copy of the Reply dated, 10-09-2014 from opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A12 : Photo copy of the blank notice from opposite party to complainant.
Ext.A13 : Photo copy of the “പൌരാവകാശ രേഖ" from opposite party to complainant..
Ext.A14 : Photo copy of the Request dated, 01-12-2014 by complainant to opposite party.
Ext.A15 : Photo copy of the Meter Reading Register.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
A. A. VIJAYAN, PRESIDENT
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
