IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  ALAPPUZHA

Thursday the 31^st  day of March, 2022.

                                      Filed on 02-07-2021

Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.123/2021

between

 ORDER

C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)

1.      Brief facts of the complaint& case are as follows:-

The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and has been provided with the con. No.C73-1018/D. Further averred that he has promptly paid his water charges. In 2017 the meter reader informed the complainant that the meter is not working and that was mentioned in the subsequent bills. Accordingly, the complainant approached the opposite party several times with a new meter and requested them to replace the defective meter. But the opposite party has not initiated any steps to install a new water meter. It is averred that only Complainant and his wife live in their house so water consumption is less. Moreover, they will be out of the station for four months every year due to complainant’s work. Further, in March 2021 the complainant found that the meter is working and he informed about the opposite party. As per their advice, the complainant made written information also.

But on 15.4.2021 op issued a bimonthly water bill for Rs.16589/- which included the arrear ofRs.750/-. The complainant alleged that the said bill is not having any data about the calculation. According to the complainant, he is not liable to pay said exorbitant amount to the opposite party. Further, a complaint was filed to the opposite party but they did not consider his grievance. Thereafter the complainant approached various authorities with his complaint but no positive action or response on their part. The Legal Service Authority directed the complainant to approach the appropriate forum and hence they closed the file.

Subsequently, the opposite party issued a bill dt.18.6.2021, for an amount of Rs.16854/-including the bimonthly water charges and arrears. At the same time, he got a telephonic message claiming that he has to pay Rs.18,039/- towards the water charges and the due date shown is 17.7.2021. Complainant alleged that after reporting the defect, the subsequent bills reflected different meter readings, which means the meter is not defective and the same is working. Complainant alleged that even though it was requested to examine the meter, the opposite party was not considered his request and issued bills one after another showing an exorbitant amount. The above acts of the opposite party amount to deficiency in services. Hence, the complainant approached this Commission for seeking the following reliefs.

1. The bills dt.15.4.2021 & 18.6.2021 are declared to be null and void.

2. Direct the opposite party to pay compensation for deficiency in service and cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

2.. Version of the opposite party is as follows:-

Opposite party admitted that the complainant is a consumer of them. It is contended that the meter reading of the complainant that was recorded on 15.2.2017 is 809 and the subsequent inspections on 17.4.2017,15.6.2017and 18.8.2017 showed constant readings. Thus found that the meter is defective and the same was informed to the complainant and entered the software of the op. Further, it is contended that the complainant remitted only the minimum rate of water charges from the date of water connection up to15.2.2017.Thereafter, during the period between 15.2.2017 to 10.3.2021 the water consumption was recorded as 2333 KL. Hence, it is found that the bimonthly consumption of the said period increased to 31.24 KL. Despite being informed about the faulty meter to the complainant, no steps were taken to replace the same. On 10.3.2021 the complainant approached the op and informed that his meter is working therefore, he is not ready to replace the same. Opposite party tried to convince about the faulty meter reading but the complainant stick to what he said. Due to the adamant attitude of the complainant, on the same day itself the field officer inspected the complainant’s meter and recorded the reading as 2333 KL and took necessary steps for rectification of the meter.

Based on the above reading monthly water consumption was calculated and issued an arrear bill for 48 months as per the revised tariff of Rs.375/- per month. Thus the complainant has to pay Rs.375/-per month as water charges but he had paid only Rs.20/- per month. Therefore, the said amount was deducted from the actual amount is, 375-20=355/-. Hence the amount calculated for 48 months is Rs.17,040/-(Rupees Seventeen thousand  and forty only )along with a bimonthly water charge of Rs.754/- and in which deducted the advance amount of Rs.1969/-hence the amount comes at Rs.15,825/- ( Rupees Fifteen thousand eight hundred and twenty only ). The bill was issued for the said amount but the complainant is not ready to pay said bill amount. Hence added the said amount and issued a subsequent bill. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. So the complainant is to be directed to pay the bill amount of Rs.16,931/-.

3. Points that are raised for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether the water bill dtd 15.4.2021 and 18.6.2021 be declared null and void?

2. Whether the op has committed deficiency in service? If so what is the quantum of compensation?

3 . Relief and cost

4. The complainant was examined as Pw1 and Ext. A1 to A4 were marked. Rw1 was examined from the side of the opposite party and Ext. B1 was marked.

4. Point nos.1and 2:-

Admittedly, the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party. The dispute is regarding the exorbitant arrear bill issued by the opposite party on 15.4.2021 for an amount of Rs. 16,589/-(sixteen thousand five hundred and eighty nine only ) and the bill dtd.18.6.2021 for an amount of Rs.16,854/-(sixteen thousand eight hundred and fifty four only ). Complainant averred that the meter reader of the opposite party informed in 2017 that the meter is faulty. Accordingly, he approached them with a request for replacement or rectification of the meter. But the complainant admitted that he has not taken the necessary steps for the replacement of meter. Further, he averred that the said finding of the Meter reader is not correct since he find out his meter is in working condition and has given written information about to the opposite party. Thereafter, the disputed bills were issued to him. It is admitted by the opposite party that the average consumption was calculated during the period between 15/2/2017 to10/3/2021.On perusal of Ext.B1series It is found that within the said period opposite party was not recorded the meter reading and adjustment bill was issued for forty eight months(15/2/2017to10/3/2021). Opposite party contended that after 15.2.2017 they had found the meter reading remains constant. The counsel for the complainant pointed out that the said version of the opposite party is not correct since the meter is working. As per Ext. B1 the readings shows after 10.3.2021 is not constant .So it can be presumed that the meter is working and the opposite party were not taken the meter reading during the said period. Moreover, nothing is before us to show that the opposite party has taken the necessary steps to inspect the accuracy of the water meter. Rw1deposed that he has no direct knowledge about the dispute since who has taken charge only on November 2021 so his testimony is not reliable. At the same time, opposite party ought to have examined the meter reader, who had found the disparity. In the absence of corroborating evidence, we have no hesitation to hold that during the said period op has failed to take the meter reading.

The following procedure stipulated in clause 13 of the Water Supply Regulation reads as follows:- Regulation 13 reads as follows:-

(a) The water consumer at the premises of a consumer shall be assessed at such intervals as decided by the Executive Engineer from time to time based on meter readings taken from the meter fixed to the house connection at the premises of the consumer.

(b)  The authority may also fix the monthly rate of water charges of a consumer based on his average consumption of water for nay previous six months in the case of existing connections and based on the estimated consumption in the case  of new connections and issue a provisional card in Form No IX indicating there in 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. The charges so fixed shall be revised if the consumption of water at the premises of the consumer is found to have increased or decreased based on the observations of the meter readings taken in the subsequent six months to the last period.

c) The Authority may also introduce a slab system for connection of water charges. The slab so fixed shall be revised if the consumption of water  at the premises of the consumer is found to have increased or  decreased as the case may be, based on observations of the meter readings taken in the subsequent six months to the last period. The initial average rate of six months shall be fixed on the average consumption or metered average consumption of any six months preceeding the  date of coming into force of the slab system.

d)  If the water  charges as provided under clauses (b) and (c) of this regulation, already remitted by the consumer is found to be in excess or short based on the meter readings taken subsequently, the consumer shall pay to the authority the amount short remitted and the authority shall adjust the amount collected in excess from the consumer in the subsequent payments.  An adjustment bill in From No. IX shall be issued once in every six months to the consumer indicating the excess or short remitted by the consumer.”

The decision rendered by the Hon'ble State Commission of Kerala in Kerala Water Authority vs. Mery Stella [31 July, 2008,Appeal (A) No.459/2005]. In which observed that the adjustment bill has been issued by the water authority without considering the stipulation of clause 13(a)&(b) of the Regulation. Hence it was, found that the consumer is not liable to remit the amount covered under the adjustment bill.

    The said decision is squarely applicable in this case. Since opposite party failed to take the reading as stipulated under clause ( b) of Regulation 13. It is also stipulated that the adjustment bill in Form No. lX shall be issued once every six months to the consumer. The issuance of the arrear bill claiming an exorbitant amount shows the failure of the opposite party in taking the reading in time. Admittedly, the complainant was paid his water charges in advance. It is evident from Ext. B1series also.

 Admittedly, during the period up to 15.2.2017, the complainant was used water at a minimum rate. Opposite party contended that after the said period up to 10.3.2021 excess consumption was found. We have already found that said findings of the opposite party were wrong. In view of the aforementioned discussions, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled get an order to set, aside the bills dtd 15.4.2021 and18.6.2021. In short, the op has only right to levy the minimum rate of water charges during the said period. Moreover, it is found that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get compensation.

5.    Point. No. 3:-

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and direct as follows:-

1. The demand cum disconnection Notices no.74362152 and 76960371 dt.15.4.2021 and18.6.2021in Ext.A1 series are hereby set aside and the opposite party is directed to issue a fresh bill and charged the minimum rate of water charges during the period of 15.2.2.2017 to 10.3.2021.

2. Opposite party is liable to pay Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only ) towards compensation for deficiency in service and also liable to pay Rs.1000/-           (Thousand only) towards the litigation cost to the complainant. It shall either be paid to the complainant or deducted from the subsequent bills.

The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the  19^th     day of March, 2022. 

                                                Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)

                                            Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                    -        Vinod Varghese (Complainant)

Ext.A1series        -        Bills. 

Ext.A2                -        Petition submitted  before Chief Minister

Ext.A3                -        Petition submitted before  Minister

Ext.A4                -        copy of message

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

RW1                                          -         Sabu.S.L (Opposite party)

Ext.B1                -         Consumer details          

//True Copy ///

To        

            Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                                           By Order

                                                                                                                          Assistant Registrar

Typed by:- Sa/-

Compared by:-