IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 10th day of May, 2022
Filed on 15.11.2021
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh kumar.Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholly.P.R ,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.271/2021
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Prasannakumar Unnithan, 1. The Asst. Executive Engineer, WSP
Sankaranarayana Sub Division, Kerala Water Authority
Kappil East, Mavelikkara
Krishnapuram Village,
(Adv. R.Gopalakrishnapilla) 2. Executive Engineer
Kerala Water Authority, Alappuzha
3. Managing Director
Kerala Water Authority
Jalabhavan Building, Vellayambalam
Thiruvananthapuram.
(Adv. Joseph Mathew for Ops)
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLY.P.R (MEMBER)
1. Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
The complainant is the president of the CB charitable society operating in the building named “Sharanya’. There is a big well located near the said building from which water was taken for daily use except for the month of May and June. For the month of May and June, water is taken from the water connection provided by the opposite party. The bill amounts of the said connection were paid on time. but on 23/12/2019, the opposite party issued a notice stating that the complainant has an overdue of Rs. 1,23,506/- and the usage per month was 359 KL per month. The opposite party had further issued fake bills regarding the usage of water such as arrears of Rs. 1,52,027/- dtd. 9/3/2020, Rs. 1,70,280/- dtd. 15/6/2020 and Rs. 2,00,580/- dtd. 2/8/2021 etc. However the bill issued on 1/10/2021 mentioned the arrear as Rs. 1,92,656/-. Thereafter on request the extract of consumer ledger of 2014 onwards the opposite parties issued the statement only from 2/10/2019 after taken the reading dtd. 21/12/2014. After further inspections it was found that the pipe which was connected by the opposite party was damaged and water leakage of water occurred there. The opposite party had realized their mistake but were not ready to reduce the amount. The complainant preferred a petition to the Adalath which was referred to District Adalath. The complainant was forced to pay the cash for the water which the complainant did not use. The opposite party has no authority to obtain average usage from 2014 as alleged. There is pure deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party.
2. In response to the complaint the opposite parties filed version mainly contenting as follows:-
The water connection having No. BHK/52/D was provided for domestic purpose. It was admitted by the complainant that he had taken water from connection even during mansoon season when sufficient water was in the well.
3. The complainant had remitted the water charge lastly on 26/2/2018 for Rs.650/-. Subsequently during the period of 3 years and 9 months the complainant did not paid the water charge. Due to the pandemic Covid-19 and flood the opposite party could not issued the bills in time. However on 2/9/2019, 27/10/2019, 24/12/2019. 12/3/2020, 16/6/2020, 22/8/2020, 10/2/2021, 14/4/2021, 18/6/2021, 3/8/2021 and 4/10/2021 the opposite party issued bill after taking meter reading.
4. The amount mentioned by the complainant is upto 23/12/2019 since the institution use such quantity of water and it was realized from the inspection for the purpose of Adalath that a large quantity of water was using from the connection. As per the decision in the Adalath the said water connection was to be changed from domestic to non domestic and also decided to proceed further steps to obtain arrears which would not remitted by the complainant.
5. There was not played any fraud in issuing the bill since the same is issued to the customer on spot prepared from office by noting the reading shown in the meter. Meter reading on 22/8/2020 was 73090 and it was same taking the reading on 20/10/2020. During that period the average consumption was calculated. Thereafter revised the bill on receiving the reading. While installing e-abacus system the data entered the last reading of 21/12/2014 and subsequently taken the readings from 2019 and that statement was given to the complainant.
6. Opposite party can rectify the damage of the main line only. After meter point if any leakage or other defect detected in the line under the land of the consumer it should have rectified the consumer himself. As per the chart it was confirmed that the consumption of water was used by the complainant. However it was inspected that whether the water loss happened due to leakage and the same was informed to the complainant in the Adalath. By suppressing this fact the complainant filed the case. After rectify the alleged leakage the consumption of water was entered as increased and decreased. During the draught season of March, April the bi-month consumption was 242.5 KL and during monsoon it was decreased by 152 KL.
7. On inspection of the property of the complainant it was reported that in the institution of the complainant the residents of old age home and persons availed naturopathy treatment were resided. The charges for the water consumed by the above mentioned persons also would be remitted by the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
8. On the above pleadings the following points were considered :-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the notices issued by the opposite parties to complainant on 16/9/2021, 4/10/2021 and 13/10/2021 declared as null and void?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony from the opposite parties?
4. Reliefs and cost?
9. Evidence in this case consists oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A14 ( Ext.A6, A7, A9, A11 and A13 are marked subject to objection) on the side of the complainant and oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 and B2 series on the part of opposite parties. Heard both sides.
10. Point No. 1 to 3:-
PW1 is the authorized agent of the complainant. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to A14 in which the marking of Ext.A6, A7, A9, A11 and A13 were objected by the opposite parties..
11. Rw1 is the Assistant Executive Engineer of Kerala Water Authority. He filed an affidavit in tune with version and got marked Ext.B1 and B2 series.
12. Admittedly the opposite party has provide a water connection to the complainant for domestic purpose. The case of the complainant is that he has been operating a charitable society in the building named “Sharanya” and the water for the daily use in that building was taken from a well situated there for almost all the purpose. He had been used the water from the connection at summer season and almost very small quantity of water from the connection during other time and the bill amounts of the said water connection were paid in time. However on 23/12/2019 demand and disconnection notice was issued directing him to pay an amount of Rs. 1,23,506/- as additional charge. Thereafter issued the bills including in Ext.A1 on different dates incorporating the additional water charge of exorbitant amount. subsequently Ext.A10 , A12 and A14 notices issued to the complainant noticing him to avoid disconnection of water connection by paying arrears of water charges. The complainant contended that according to Ext.A2 Consumer Ledger- Reading details and adjustment details it is shown that after the reading dated 21/12/2014 it was taken on 2/9/2019 and hence the usage of water recorded by the opposite parties is fake one. It is also admitted by the opposite party in Ext.A14 that bi-month bill issued to the complainant from 2019 onwards. No clarification at anywhere in the documents mentioned by the opposite party how can they reached such a conclusion as stated in Ext.A10 that the complainant had used an average water consumption of 200 KL per month from 2014 onwards. It is also seen from Ext.A1 the computerized bills issued to the complainant only from 23/12/2019 onwards. As alleged by the complainant it was also mentioned the date of issuing the bills is much earlier than the date of taking the meter reading. In this circumstance we are also in consensus with the allegation leveled against the opposite parties.
13. Regarding the consumptions of water for non domestic purpose from the domestic connection, the opposite party could not prove the same by cogent evidence than the mere allegation in the version and chief affidavit of RW1. If there was any report available to that effect, they should have submitted for its scrutiny.
14. At the very beginning of suspecting the exaggerated amount of water charge the complainant initiated complaints regarding the same to the opposite parties for redressal of his grievance, but not succeed. Accordingly the complainant constrained to file this complaint. Moreover, at the time of examination of PW1 the marking of Ext.A6, A7, A9, A11 and A13 were objected by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. Subsequently during re-examination it was clarified by PW1 that Ext.A10 is the reply of Ext.A9. Accordingly on perusal of Ext.A14 it is the reply of opposite parties to Ext. A13, the petition lodged by the complainant to opposite party.
15. As stated earlier it is mentioned that during the period between 21/12/2014 and 23/12/2019 the opposite party had not taken the meter reading of the complainant, but calculated the arrear of water charge in Ext.A1 bills as mentioned in Ext.A10 that the complainant had consumed an average of 200 KL per month 2014 onwards. As a matter of fact only previous arrear for a period of 3 years can be realized by the opposite party. In said circumstances Ext.A10, A12 and A14 are liable to be declared as null and void and the opposite parties is directed to issue fresh bill of actual consumption and complainant is directed to pay the said bill. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are not allow compensation to the complainant.
16. Point No. 4:-
In the result complaint stands allowed in part as per the following terms.
A) Ext.A10, A12 and A14 are declared null and void and opposite parties are directed to issue fresh bill considering the actual consumption of the complainant.
2. Both parties shall bear their respective cost.
Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 10th day of May, 2022.
Sd/-Smt. Sholly.P.R(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - B.Chandramohan(Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Bills (6nos)
Ext.2 - Consumer Ledger Details (2 nos)
Ext.A3 - Copy of Petition dtd. 6/1/2020
Ext.A4 - Receipt dtd. 6/1/2020
Ext.A5 - Copy of Statement dtd. 26/2/2020
Ext.A6 - Copy of Petition Dtd. 14/3/2020(Sub to Obj)
Ext.A7 - Copy of Petition dtd. 20/3/2020 (S.O)
Ext.A8 - Copy of Revenue Adalath (KWA) 2019-2020
Ext.A9 - Copy of Application dtd. 4/8/2021 (S.O)
Ext.A10 - Reply dtd. 16/9/2021
Ext.A11 - Copy of Application dtd. 25/9/2021 (S.O)
Ext.A12 - Notice dtd. 4/10/2021
Ext.A13 - Copy of Application dtd. 4/10/2021 (S.O)
Ext.A14 - Notice issued by OP dtd. 13/10/2021
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Archana K(Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of Letter dtd. 26/2/2022
Ext.B2 series - Consumer Details
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
