CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2016
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 06/11/2015
: SRI. V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC /165/2015
Sen Varghese, S/o.C.M.Varghese,
Edathara House, Chathamanagalam, - Complainant
Thevarmani, Nemmara, Palakkad-678 508
(By.Adv.T.Mahesh)
Vs
1. Assistant Engineer,
Nemmara Water Authority,
Nemmara Division, Palakkad.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, - Opposite parties
Chittur Water Authority,
Chittur, Palakkad.
(By Adv.K.A.Stanly James)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The complainant in this case is a consumer of opposite parties from 2006 August onwards as per consumer No.NAM/3069. During 2006 the consumer obtained connection for the purpose of his house construction and after the construction the said connection was converted to domestic connection. The consumer was remitting the water bill @272/- per month till July 2015. He alleges that opposite party after providing domestic connection had took the meter reading only on 12/12/2014. Based up on the reading the opposite party issued an addition water bill on 6/5/2015 for Rs.45,188/-. The complainant filed objections with regard to the said bill. The opposite party issued another bill dtd.6/8/2015 for an amount of Rs.24,900/-. He had also filed objection to the said bill before the Executive Engineer, Palakkad Division. He had filed complaints about the excess bill at the opposite party’s office at Palakkad, Chittur and Nemmara. From the Chittur office his meter was checked and they found out slight variations in the functioning. They also informed him that when water is not available the valve had to be closed, otherwise there is a chance for running of the meter by the passage of air through it. The complainant submits that since he and his wife are leaving the home early at 8.30 hours in the morning and will be back only by 5.30 hours in the evening, they are not in a position to close the valve due the scarcity of water. The opposite party had also issued another bill dated.16/10/2015 for an amount of Rs.1,720/- as water charges. Now the dues burdened upon him is Rs.71,833/-. The complainant further submits that issuing a bill after 6 years after obtaining connection amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant had approached before the Forum with a prayer for cancellation of the above bills and also to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by him due to the above act of the opposite parties.
The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance. Opposite party 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed version stating the following contentions.
The opposite parties admits that the complainant is a consumer since 2006 onwards. Initial connection was converted as domestic connection on 23/01/2008. They had also admitted that the complainant was remitting water charges @ 272/- per month till July 2015. They further submits that after converting the connection as domestic connection, meter reading was recorded only on 12/12/2014. According to the above reading the consumption of the complainant was @ 62 kl per month but the consumer was paying bills @ 30kl per month. Hence the consumer had to remit Rs.1180/- per month as water charges instead of Rs.272/- per month. The difference of amount remitted by the complainant was calculated during the said period and an additional bill was issued for the balance amount on 6/5/2015 for an amount of Rs.45,188/-. Even after issuing the additional bill the complainant was remitting water charges @ Rs.272/- per month till December 2015. On recording further readings it was found that the consumer was consuming more than 30 kl . The consumers are bound to pay the charges for additional usage even if they are remitting charges according to the slab. The opposite party had conceded that they could not record the meter reading and issue additional bills form 2008 till 2014 due to certain technical reasons beyond their control. They are prepared to arrange installment payments, provided the consumer should remit the balance amount.
The opposite party had denied the contention of the complainant that the meter had jumped the reading due to the passage of air. There is no possibility of entering air since the said connection is from the main pump and the consumer is staying in a locality were water has been constantly supplied. They had also denied the further allegation that the complainant at his own expenses had cleaned the pipeline and had changed the pipe line from the road towards his house. The complainant had not filed any complaints before the opposite party till the issuance of arrear bill on 6/5/2015. The opposite party had also submitted that after recording the reading on 12/12/2014 the complainant filed the complaint before the opposite parties and they visited the premises for enquiry. The next meter recording was taken at that instance . This reading will show that the complainant had consumed higher quantity of water. The next allegation of the complainant was that no recording is recorded in his meter card after 13/11/2008. The opposite party states that this is not possible if the consumer is not available at the site when meter reading was taken or if he had not shown the card at the time of inspection. When the complainant complained about the meter he was asked to produce it before the opposite party. Accordingly the meter was tested and slight variations in the recording was found. The opposite party agreed to reduce the said variation in the recording and it was also intimated to the complainant. They had also instructed the complainant to close the valve when they were out of the house, but they were not following the above instruction. Hence there is a possibility of over flowing when there is no one inside the house. According to the new meter readings the complainant was consuming water @ 143 kl per month. Hence the opposite party had issued the another bill for the balance amount of Rs.24,900/- from 18/5/2015 onwards. Hence the total amount is to be paid by the complainant is Rs.71,833/-. The opposite party had also submitted that the complainant shall be directed to pay the said amount on installment basis. There is no personal vengeance towards the complainant for the opposite parties. The allegation that the neighbours were not issued any additional bills was that the consumption for those neighbours are very limited. They had also submitted that they may not be directed to pay compensation on the basis of late issuance of the additional bill.
Complainant filed chief affidavits along with documents. Ext.A1 to A15 was marked from the side of complainant. Opposite party had also filed proof affidavit. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite
Parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
ISSUES
We have perused the documents as well as affidavits produced from both sides. It is evident from Ext.A3 that the opposite party had issued additional bill for an amount of Rs.45,188/- for consumption of water for a period of 1/2008 – 11/2014 i.e. for 6 six years. The opposite party had also admitted the said fact that they could not record the meter reading during that period due to some technical reasons. But the consumer should not be troubled due to the above act of the opposite party. Even if there are dues towards the complainant as alleged by the opposite party the said amount cannot be recovered since it is barred by law of limitation. The opposite party had themselves conceded that they had not taken the reading during 6 years. This itself amounts to deficiency of service on their part. They are bound to record the meter reading of the consumers periodically atleast once in every six months. So that even if there are excess consumption the consumers can be charged at the earliest. Without recording the meter reading for the past 6 years they are not justifiable in demanding the consumer to pay huge amounts at a stretch. Hence the amount due from Ext.A3 cannot be recovered from the complainant after a period of 7 years since the bill was issued only on 6/5/2015. But with regard to Ext.A4 it is seen that the arrear is from December 2014 to May 2015 and the meter reading was recorded promptly. Even if there are dues to be collected from the complainant the opposite party can realize the dues due from 2012 onwards. The rest of the amount before 2012 cannot be realized from the complainant. Hence we direct the opposite party to issue a fresh bill for the arrears due from 2012 onwards.
With the above observation the complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for the damages sustained by the complainant along with Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of July, 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma. K.P
Member
Sd/-
V.P. Anantha Narayanan
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Original Consumer’s meter card
Ext.A2 – Original Provisional invoice card
Ext.A3 – Original bill Rs.45,188/-dtd.06/05/2015
Ext.A4 - Original bill Rs.24,900/-dtd.06/08/2015
Ext.A5 - Original bill Rs.71,833-dtd.16/10/2015
Ext.A6- Photocopy of complaint to Exe.Engineer, P.H.Division, Water Authority, Palakkad.dtd.11/9/2015
Ext.A7-Photocopy of complaint to the Asst.Engineer, Nemmara Water Authority dtd.24/7/2015
Ext.A8-Photocopy of complaint to the Vigilant Kerala,Nemmara dtd.31/7/2015
Ext.A9-Photocopy of complaint to the Asst.Engineer, Nemmara Water Authority dtd.07/5/2015
Ext.A10-Original Receipt Rs.816/- dtd.9/10/2015
Ext.A11-Reply letter dtd.31/8/2015
Ext.A12-Acknowledgement card original
Ext.A13- Application dtd.7/5/2015 to the Asst.Engineer, Nemmara Water Authority.
Ext.A14-Application for Right to Information Act
Ext.A15-Reply of Right to Information Act dtd.11/03/2016
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost Allowed
Rs.1,000/- as cost.
