CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 29 ^th day of November, 2012.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 24/09/2012

CC .No/173/2012

P. Ravindranathan,

S/o. Ramankutty Menon,

Thuppalay house, Chorath lane, - Complainant

Tattamangalam. P.O,

Palakkad.

Vs

Assistant Executive Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

P.H. Sub Division, - Opposite party

Chittur, Palakkad.

O R D E R

BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER

Complaint in brief :-

The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party vide water connection No. 96. On 3/08/12 the opposite party issued an arear bill for Rs. 11,280/- as water charge from April 2010 to March 2012. The complainant has sent a letter to the opposite party against the bill No. 14328. But no reply was received. If the opposite party has taken meter reading once in six months the complainant would have take steps to prevent the excess consumption of water. The opposite party has not taken meter reading at the intervels specified by the competant authorities.

The above act of opposite party amounts deficiency of service on their part and caused mental agony and monetary loss to the complainant.

So the complaint seeking an order directing the opposite party to cancell the arrear bill amount of Rs. 11,280/- and pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 500/- as cost of the proceedings.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version.

The consumer No. 96/CTR is in the name of Ramankutty Menon 16/132 Thathamangalam. It was not transferred in the name of the present complainant P. Ravindranathan. The complainant used to pay the minimum water charge of Rs. 42/- only. As per the letter sent by Ravindranathan. P. on 14/08/12 the opposite party went to the house of the compalainant on 24/08/12, 4/09/12 and 4/10/12 for verifying the meter reading . As the house was locked they could not check the meter reading. The house was locked on 22/10/12 when the Assistant executive Engineer was made a group inspection.

As per the meter reading from 17/03/10 to 29/03/12 55,000 litre water was consumed per month. So the arear bill issued for Rs. 11,280/- from 2010 April to 2012 March. As per law meter reading has to take once in 6 months for domestic connection. But due to the shortage of staff, the opposite party is not able to abide the law. Moreover the consumer is using 41,000 Ltr water per month as per the reading taken on 3/08/12. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.

Both parties filed affidavits. Ext A1 to A3 and Ext B1 to B2 marked.

Heard the parties.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party ?

2. If so what is the relief and cost?

Issues 1 & II

The complaint is filed for the cancellation of the arrear bill dtd. 3/08/12 for an amount of Rs.11,280/- . If the opposite party had taken the meter reading once in a month or as per law the complainant would have take necessary steps to reduce the consumption of water. The opposite party has issued Ext. A1 bill for the period from 2010 April to 2012 March. The period for which average billing is done is written as 24 months and average chargeable quantity is 55KL. Opposite party admitted that the complainant is remitting the minimum water charge regularly. As per the 13(b) of Kerala water supply Registration the Authority may also fix the monthly rate of water charges of a consumer based on his average consumption of water for any previous six months in the case of existing connection and based on the estimated consumption in the case of new connection and issue provisional card in form No. VII indicating there is the amount of water charges payable by the consumer every month, the date of payment and the institution at which the amount is to be remitted. But the opposite party has not followed the same and issued the arrear bill for 24 months together.

Complainant has no case that the meter is faulty. In the version the opposite party has pointed out that there is a leakage of water after the meter. But the leakage of water after the meter will not affect the meter reading of the complainant. So the quantity of water consumed by the complainant as per Ext. A1 document is genuine. And complainant is liable to remit the amount as per Ext. A1 document.

Opposite party contents that the delay occurred in taking of meter reading was due to the shortage of staff. But the complainant should not be the agrieved party for the same. Opposite party contents that the house of the complainant was locked when they reached there for taking meter reading. But no evidence is produced to show the same.

From the above discussions we are of the view that the act of opposite party amounts deficiency of service on their part.

In the result complaint partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1000/- ( Rupees one thousand only ) as cost of the proceedings. Opposite party is also directed to give sufficient time (3 months) to the complainant for remitting the arear amount of Rs.11,280/- (Rupees Eleven thousand Two hundred and Eighty only).

Order shall be complied within 3 months from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 29 ^th day of November, 2012.

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1– Bill of water authority dtd. 3/08/2012.

Ext.A2 – copy of letter sent by P. Ravindranathan to the opposite party dtd. 11/08/12.

Ext. A3 – Copy of the acknowledgement receipt send by the complainant to the opposite party dtd. 14/08/12.

Exhibitsmarked on the side of opposite party

Ext. B1- Copy of letter send by the complainant to opposite party dtd. 11/08/12.

Ext. B2- Form of Disconnection.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost allowed

Rs. 1000/- ( Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.