BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 29/12/2010

Date of Order : 24/10/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 683/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

Paul Gomez, Member.

1. These are the facts related to the complaint :

The complainant is a tenant of the person with whom the opposite party has a contractual liability for supply of drinking water. The parties fell apart with the issuance of a water bill dated 30-07-2010 claiming excessively large amount as water charges. The opposite party obliged to the request of the complainant to inspect the meter and found nothing wrong with the bill. In the next month, another bill of similar amount was issued. The protests made by him and his family did not evoke any sympathy with the opposite party. Therefore, part payment was made by the complainant. There is no circumstances existing for excessive consumption of water, since the opposite party supplies water only twice daily and complainant has no water tank to store the same. Hence the complainant urges us to quash the impugned bill and claims compensation and cost also.

2. The very maintainability of the complaint is challenged by the opposite party in his version on several grounds. Not only that on merits also, the complaint cannot be sustained. The impugned bill dated 30-02-2010 squarely corresponds with the consumption of water, which was recorded by hassle free meter. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice attributable to the opposite party, since he has discharged his legitimate duty only when he issued bill claiming water charges according to reading recorded by a meter which on inspection was found to be without any defect. The meter was again tested on the application moved by the resident's association and the bill was corrected accordingly. Rs. 4,023/- is outstanding as arrears from the complainant as on 10/2010. Hence the Forum is requested to dismiss the complaint.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1. He has produced 11 documents which were marked as Exts. A1 to A11. The opposite party did not have any oral evidence. He produced a document which was marked as Ext. B1. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The short points for determination :

1. Whether the opposite party is justified in issuing the impugned bill?

2. What are the reliefs, if any?

5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- The complainant is aggrieved with bill dated 30-07-2010 issued by the opposite party claiming Rs. 8,200/- (Rupees Eight thousand and two hundred only). Much hue and cry was raised against such a bill by the complainant, his wife and the resident's association concerned as reflected in Exts. A4, A5, A6 and A10 petitions. The opposite party relented on the pressure and caused the inspection of the water meter twice and modified the bill to Rs. 7,522/- (Rupees Seven thousand five hundred and twenty two only). Anyhow, he was compelled to pay Rs. 3,755/- contends the complaint.

6. Obviously, the amount claimed in the bill to the tune of Rs. 8,200/- is on account of adjustment amount due to excess/short fall in consumption. When one goes through Ext. A7 bills produced by the complainant, it is crystal clear that there was not any sudden spurt in consumption. He has produced copies of bills from 04-11-2005. From that date onwards till 25-09-2007, the average consumption had never crossed KL-5. But thereafter, the average consumption has risen to around 18 KL. It is in the bills issued on 30-07-2010 and 28-09-2010, the average consumption is recorded as 57.5. It is pertinent to note that the initial noting of 57.5 has been corrected to 24.4 in the bill issued on 28-09-2010. Another significant aspect deserving our attention is the correction made regarding the status of the meter made in the same bill. Earlier, it is typed written as 'observation reading' which has been corrected by hand as 'working'. Therefore, the credibility of those bills seems to be under shadow. Hence we think, in the interest of justice, the bill must be quashed. At the same time, it is not fair on the part of the complainant to skip his liability to pay for the water he had actually consumed. It is noticeable that from the very beginning, the complainant has been raising doubt about the functioning of the installed meter. Therefore, it is only just and fair to allow time to install fresh water meter in his premises. The average consumption for six months may be watched and recorded and fresh bill on the basis of average consumption recorded for the period of six months may be issued for the period from 06-06-2010 till date. The amount he has already paid may be adjusted for the charges over such period. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to the case, we do not think the complainant deserves any other reliefs.

7. In the result, the complaint is allowed as follows :

The opposite party is directed to issue fresh bill over the period from 06-06-02010 till date based on average consumption recorded after the installation of fresh water meter as directed in this order.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 24^th day of October 2011.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========