BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                               : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                    : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU V.R                                   : MEMBER

C.C. No. 230/2017 Filed on 16.06.2017

ORDER DATED: 21.12.2020

Complainant:

Radhakrishnan,

Nandhilam,

Kulappada,

Kulappada.P.O.,

Nedumangadu,

Thiruvananthapuram.

        (Party in person)

Opposite party:

1. Assistant Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

Aryanad – 695 542.

2. The Managing Director,

Kerala Water Authority,

Jala Bhavan, Vellayambalam,

(By Adv.V.Vinod Kumar)

This case having been heard on 02/11/20, the Commission 21/12/2020 delivered the order.

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR: MEMBER

              The complainant has availed the domestic water connection with consumer number UML/948/D.  The said water connection came into effect on 2016.  The bill issued by the opposite party’s up to 17/01/2017 for an amount of Rs.2568/- and deducted Rs.37/- from their amount.  The bill issued by the opposite parties in the month of January is Rs.2535/-.  At that day the opposite parties stated that the meter is faulty and directed to give a complaint to the office of opposite parties.  There after the opposite parties had issue a bill for an amount of Rs.38,775/- from 17/01/2017 to 11/03/2017 for the water usage of 54 days.  According to the complaint the water is given only 2 days in a week.  The complainant has used water in the well to his food preparation and other usages.  On 11/03/2017 the complainant had enquired about the huge bill to the opposite party.  Then the opposite party stated that the amount will be paid for use of water.  Further opposite party stated that if he is not ready to pay the water charges, the water connection will be disconnected and the opposite parties taken the photos of misuse of water from the surroundings.  The complainant had got water at the time of high pressure pumping.  The complainant had not accepted the huge amount of water bill.  Then he registered a complaint to the office of the opposite party at Nedumangad.  The complaint was forward to the 1^st opposite party.  But 1^st opposite party had not taken action.  Thereafter the complainant had called a plumber to test the water meter as per the direction of opposite parties.  On 05/05/2017 the report was filed that there was no complaint to the water meter.  Moreover the opposite parties had stated that they had inspected the water meter to examine whether the meter run properly and note that whether the meter runs excess.  Further the complainant had stated that one of his neighbor was worked in the water authority and he was influenced the officials to give the huge amount of bill due to some personal problems with the complainant.  The Acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

        Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions.  The first contention raised by the opposite party is that the complaint is not a consumer of Kerala Water authority.  The domestic water connection is in the name of one Sivaprasad.  The said water connection came into effect on 07/01/2016 12KL/M was the water consumption in UML/948/D January 2017.  The meter reading on 17/01/2017 was 350 KL.  It increased to 1321 on 13/03/2017.  Thus the average monthly consumption arose to 485.5KL.  The water charge is calculated in accordance with the above stated meter reading.  Accordingly a water bill of Rs.38,775/- was given for the month of March 2017.  After getting a complaint, the water meter in UML/948/D was inspected by the opposite parties.  After inspection of the complainant’s premises a seriously misuse of drinking water come to light.  It was found that the consumers were indulged in wastage of precious scarce drinking water.  A pipe was affixed on a well inside their premise to misuse water.  The opposite parties had given reply to the complaint on 27/03/2017.  The water meter in UML/948/D was tested in the meter Test House of Kerala Water Authority and certified in good working condition.  The complainant is bound to pay the amount stated in the water bill as per the Kerala Water Supply Regulation Rules. 

Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issue No. 1&2: We perused relevant documents on record complainant examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P8 marked.There was no oral evidence from the side of the opposite parties.The water connection was in the name of Sivaprasad and the complainant is the father of Sivaprasad.Then the complainant is the beneficiary and he is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.The complainant stated that the opposite parties told that the meter was not running in right way at the time of inspection and the bill amount was not enough to the water usage of the complainant.Moreover the complainant had used the water from the well to cooking and drinking.The complainant has used motor inside the well for taking water.In Ext.P1 the bill dated 09/03/2017 the meter reading is 1321/- on 11/03/2017 and 350/- on 17/01/2017 and the bill amount is 38775/- Rs.In Ext.P2 is the meter reading on 11/05/2017 is 1377/- and 13/03/2017 is 1321/- and the bill amount is 39,293/-Rs.The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to prove the misuse of drinking water from the side of complainant.The opposite parties claim is mainly on the basis of Ext.P1 water bill dated 09/03/2017.The Ext.P1 shows Rs.38,775/- as the water charges due from the complainant.On perusal of Ext.P1 it is seen that the said bill was issued on the basis of a meter reading recorded on 11/03/2017 Ext.P1 also shows that the previous reading was 17/01/2017.On careful verification of Ext.P1 we find that there is some discrepancies.We find that a bill was generated on 09/03/2017 on the basis of a post dated reading is recoded on 11/03/2017.Hence on that ground alone Ext.P1 bill can be considered as not liable one.The earlier water bills issued by the opposite parties are not produced by the opposite parties to prove their case.If those prior bills were produced by opposite party then this Commission could have been able to assess the average consumption of the complainant.After paying the bill amount a consumer is not suppose to keep the bills.Hence we cannot blame the complainant for not producing the previous bills.In Ext.P2 the water bill dated 06/05/2017 shows the difference of water meter reading is only 56 KL.The opposite parties have not produced evidence to prove their case.In view of the above discussions we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

In the result complaint is allowed.We direct the opposite parties to cancel the two bills dated 09/03/2017, 06/05/2017 and issue a fresh bill by considering the average consumption of water by the Complainant from the date of connection in the year 2016 till the previous bill of Ext.P1 without interest and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) with cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the complainant.

                   A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements is forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 21^st  day of December, 2020.  

                                                                    Sd/-

                                                         P.V.JAYARAJAN             : PRESIDENT

                                                                    Sd/-

                                                        PREETHA G. NAIR         : MEMBER 

                                                                   Sd/-

                                                               VIJU V.R                   : MEMBER 

R                                                                          

C.C.No.230/2017

                                APPENDIX

I       COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

       PW1: Radhakrishnan      

II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

  P1: Copy of water bill dated 09/03/2017.

  P2: Copy of Water bill dated 06/05/2017.

  P3: Copy of Application Dated 27/03/2017.

  P4: Copy of Meter Testing Report dated 04/05/2017.

  P5: Copy of Right to Information.

  P6: Copy of the letter issued to Assistant Engineer, Water

        Supply Section, Ariyanadu dated 24/07/2017.

  P7:Copy of the appeal application for Right to Information Act.

  P8:Copy of the Bill dated 08/09/2017.

III     OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                  NIL

IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                  NIL

                                                                                     Sd/-

PRESIDENT

R