By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. Brief facts:-

Complainant is the consumer under opposite party for water connection. The water charges were Rs.2.50 for 1000 litres of water and complainant was regularly remitting the charges. On 10/93 complainant paid Rs.936/- towards the then dues. Thereafter the meter became faulty and supply was disconnected. On 08-01-97 opposite party issued notice to complainant directing the complainant to replace the meter. The meter was reconnected on 02-02-98. The meter was not working properly and was recording excessive reading even without consuming water. The matter was reported to opposite party and the meter was disconnected. Thereafter complainant was not consuming any water. While so, opposite party directed complainant to pay Rs.5,387/- as water charges for 7 months for the period 2/98 to 8/98. Complainant challenged the bill and preferred complaint. Opposite party issued a further notice on 01-12-99 directing the complainant to replace the meter. Complainant then requested opposite party to dismantle instead of replacing the meter and the meter was dismantled. Opposite party issued another notice on 08-6-2001 for Rs.8,476/- being charges from 8/98 to 1/2001 though the meter was disconnected from 8/98 onwards. Complainant preferred complaint before opposite party but no steps were taken by opposite party to rectify the mistake. Instead another notice was issued dated, 28-02-2004 directing complainant to pay Rs.9,328/-. Complainant send a reply to this on 23-3-2004. Complainant is not liable to pay any amount as demanded by opposite party. Revenue recovery proceedings has been initiated against complainant. The bill issued is without any basis and not sustainable. It is quiet unbelievable and unreasonable that complainant has consumed lakhs of litres of water within a short period, that too when it is under disconnection and when there was no consumption of water. Complainant has a well and using the well water. The meter was faulty and the readings recorded are not correct. Hence this complaint to cancel all the bills issued by opposite party and to issue revised bill, for payment of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and loss and for costs of Rs.2,000/-

2. Opposite party has filed version admitting that complainant is a consumer of water supply for domestic purpose. It is submitted that originally ie., prior to 4/1991 this water supply was provided by Pulamanthole Panchayat and thereafter taken up by opposite party. At the time when opposite party took charge of water supply, complainant was a chronic defaulter. On 24-6-97 the supply was disconnected due to non-payment of water charges and fault of meter. On 07-7-97 complainant paid arrears of charges and requested for reconnection of water supply. On the request of complainant a new meter was installed and supply was restored. At that time meter reading was zero. On 8/98 when meter reading was taken the reading was 130 kilo litre which means the average consumption per month was 187 kilo litres of water. As per the prevailing rate, the charges payable by complainant was Rs.762/- per month. Complainant was also liable to pay Rs.2/- per month as service charges. The calculation of water charge from 12-02-98 to 8/98 is given in the version which shows the total amount payable Rs.5,378/- for which a bill was issued on 12-2-99. Meanwhile opposite parties conducted an enquiry on suspicion with regard to the excess consumption of water by complainant. It was revealed that a lot of water was overflowing from the water tank of the complainant which was the reason for excess consumption and excess reading in the meter. That it is the duty of complainant to maintain in proper condition, the water tank and pipe lying after water meter. That opposite party is not liable for any leakage in pipe and tank installed after water meter. That therefore complainant is liable to pay this bill.

3. The next meter reading was taken in June, 1999. At this time the reading was 1648 kilo litres of water. So the consumption between August, 1998 and June, 1999 is 337 kilo litres of water (1648 – 1309). The average consumption per month was calculated to be 34 kilo litre per month. So the amount payable from 8/98 to 6/99 is Rs.1,070/-.

4. On 08-5-2000 notice was issued to complainant demanding payment of Rs.6,448/- (5,378/- + Rs.1,070/-). Complainant failed to pay the amount and so the supply was disconnected on 08-6-2001. At that time the reading was 1648 kilo litre. Complainant was liable to pay Rs.100/- for water charge and Rs.2/- towards service charges for the period 7/99 to 6/2001. On 28-02-2004 notice demanding payment of Rs.9,328/- which includes water charges, fine and service charges was issued to complainant. He failed to pay the amount and therefore Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated. In the said notice by mistake Rs.102/- was added in excess. Instead of paying the correct amount complainant has preferred this complaint. Reply was issued to complainant to his notice, but was returned as unserved. The bills issued are proper, legal and complainant is liable to pay the same. That complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.

5. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by both sides. Exts.A1 to A11 marked for complainant. Ext.B1 marked for opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.

6. Points for consideration:-

(i) Whether opposite party is deficient in service.

(ii) If so, reliefs and costs.

7. Point (i):-

Before entering into the discussion we have to state that both sides have equally failed to appraise proper and correct facts in their respective pleadings. As per the submissions made and materials on record it is made out that complainant is presently liable to pay Rs.9,328/- on 28-02-2004 for which revenue recovery proceedings were initiated. This demand notice dated, 28-02-2004 is Ext.A7. Though complainant was a consumer for water supply from 1991 onwards this supply was disconnected on 26-6-1997 for non-payment of water charges. Ext.B1 which is the meter reading register shows that complainant paid entire dues of Rs.1,868/- on 07-7-1997. That after this, water supply was again given to the complainant on 12-02-1998. Ext.A7 bill is seen issued for the period after 12-02-1998. Therefore we limit the consideration of the dispute to the period after 12-02-1998. It is submitted by opposite party that complainant was a chronic defaulter from the very beginning and the supply was disconnected on 08-6-2001 due to non-payment of charges. That complainant is liable to pay the amount assessed as per the meter readings. It was submitted by complainant that the meter was faulty and that opposite party failed to take meter readings in exact intervals and therefore the bills issued are without any basis. It is noted in Ext.B1 that water supply was disconnected on 08-6-2001 due to non-remittance of water charges and the meter being faulty. Admittedly prior to 08-6-2001 two bills for the period 2/98 to 8/98 (Rs.5,378/-) and for the period 8/98 to 6/99 (Rs.6,448/-) were issued to complainant. Thereafter the meter being stuck opposite party has assessed charges at the rate of Rs.100/- per month with Rs.2/- as service charges upto 08-6-2001 and thus from 2/98 to 08-6-2001 the amount due as per Ext.B1 is Rs.8,476/-. Thereafter adding fine and disconnection fee the amount due as per Ext.B1 is Rs.9,226/-. Opposite party contends that Rs.102/- was mistakenly charged as excess in Ext.A7. According to complainant the meter was recording excess readidng. On taking into consideration the meter readings and quantity of water consumed in a short period, this argument raised by complainant is not without force. It is seen that the quantity of water consumed for a period of six months is 1309 kilo litre of water. At no stretch of imagination can such huge quantity be consumed for domestic purpose. It is the case of opposite party that suspecting the huge consumption they conducted an enquiry. It is also submitted that in enquiry it was revealed that such consumption was rcorded because water was overflowing from the tank of the complainant. This, in our view is no reasonable or sufficient explanation. The supply herein is that of drinking water. There are specific provisions in the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986 which envisages actions to be taken by opposite party in cases of wastage of drinking water. Sec.44(2) provides that whenever Authority has reasons to believe that water is being wasted, a written notice is to be issued to the consumer to repair and make good the defect. Sec.45(e) empowers the Authority to cut off the supply in cases of wastage of water. Opposite party has not resorted to any of these actions and therefore the contention that excess or unbelievable consumption was due to wastage of water by overflow cannot be accepted. It can be reasonably inferred that the meter was recording excessive consumption on being faulty. This together with the fact that opposite party has recorded in Ext.B1 that supply was disconnected due to non-remittance of charges and meter being faulty would prove that the meter was faulty during the relevant period from 2/98 to 6/2001. It is not stated in xt.B1 on which date the meter became faulty. Complainant is not liable to pay charges for the readings recorded by a faulty meter. Further from 6/99 to 6/2001 opposite party has charged Rs.100/- on an average basis, since the meter was stuck and was not recording any consumption. For the above reasons we are able to conclude that the amount of Rs.9,328/- demanded by opposite party in Ext.A7 notice is not legal and proper and is liable to be set aside. Issuance of bill without basing upon proper and correct meter readings amounts to deficiency in service. We find opposite party deficient in service.

8. Point (ii):-

On cancellation of Ext.A7 notice to pay Rs.9,328/- complainant is definitely liable to pay charges for the water he has consumed. In the present case all through the relevant period between 2/98 to 6/2001 for which Ext.A7 was issued the meter was faulty. Therefore there is actually no correct readings available before us during this period to fix the consumption and for issuance of revised bill. Even before 12-02-1998 the meter is noted as faulty and there are no meter readings available. We therefore have no other way but to fix Rs.100/- per month as averagewater charges adding Rs.2/- as service charges per month for the entire period from 2/98 to 6/2001. Opposite party also has taken such charges for the period 6/99 to 6/2001 when meter readings were not available. We therefore direct opposite parties to issue revised bill to complainant @ Rs.100/- per month as water charges and adding Rs.2/- per month as service charges for the period from 2/98 to 6/2001 without any fine or other penal charges.

9. In the result we partly allow the complaint and order that Ext.A7 bill for Rs.9,328/- dated, 28-02-2004 stands cancelled. Opposite party shall issue revised bill to complainant charging Rs.100/- as water charges per month along with Rs.2/- as service charges per month for the period 2/98 to 6/2001. The time limit for compliance of this order is fixed as two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the complainant has already remitted the amount the balance after adjustment shall be refunded to the complainant. In the circumstances of the case we do not make any order as to costs.

Dated this 12^th day of January, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A11

Ext.A1 : Bill for Rs.34.45 dated, 29-10-1983 issued by opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A2 : Receipt for Rs.83/- dated, 02-3-85 as water charge from Pulamanthole Panchayat

to complainant.

Ext.A3 : Receipt for Rs.195.85 dated, 30-7-88 as water charge from Pulamanthole

Panchayat to complainant.

Ext.A4 : Letter dated, 08-01-97 from opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A5 : Letter dated, 01-12-99 from opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A6 : Letter dated, 08-6-2001 from opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A7 : Photo copy of the Registered with A/D notice dated, 28-02-04

for Rs.9,328/- by opposite to complainant.

Ext.A8 : Photo copy of the request dated, 23-3-04 by complainant to opposite party.

Ext.A9 : Photo copy of the Revenue Recovery notice dated, 10-6-2005 by

Tahsildar, Perintalmanna to complainant.

Ext.A10 : Photo copy of the Revenue Recovery notice for Rs.9,692/-

dated, 15-02-2008 by Village Officer, Pulamanthole.

Ext.A11 : Photo copy of the order of withdrawal of attachment No.D2/4835/05

by Tahsildar, Perintalmanna to Sub-Registrar, Perintalmanna.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1

Ext.B1 : Attested copy of meter reading register of consumer No.PL 63.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER