DATE OF FILING : 27.1.2017

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  30th  day of  May,  2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.21/2017

Between

Complainant       :   Dr. P.C. Ravenndranath,

Karthika House,    

Idukki Colony P.O.,

Cheruthoni, Idukki. 

(By Adv:      )

And

Opposite Parties                                          : 1. The Assistant Engineer,

    Kerala State Electricity Board,

    Camp Section, Vazhathoppe,      

    Idukki Colony P.O., Idukki.

2. The Executive Engineer,

    Kerala State Electricity Board,

   Research & Dam Safety Division No.2,

Vazhathoppe, Idukki Colony P.O., Idukki. (Both by Adv:  Lissy M.M.)

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant is the drinking water consumer of opposite party having No.3 from 1978 onwards.  His regular domestic consumption bill was only a small amount for years.  While so, on 31.5.2010, 1st opposite party issued a bill for Rs.1084/- as water charges from 1.7.2009 to 31.5.2010, i.e., average Rs.98.54 per month.  From 12.1.2015, there is a huge difference from the previous bills and the bill issued by the opposite party for the period from 10/14 to 12/14 shows Rs.3357/- and bill for the period from 5/14 to 9/14 shows as Rs.1240/-.  Thereafter during the year 2015, opposite party issued another 2 bills for an amount of Rs.16000/-.  The complainant was forced to remit the bills in instalments.  Again on 14.3.2016, the 1st opposite party issued a bill for Rs.24568/- for the period from 11/15 to 2/16 and issued another bill for anamount of Rs.21900/- for the period from 3/16 to 7/16.  Complainant further averred that, the consumer number noted in these bills are different and bill dated 25.7.2016 does not mentioned the reading of water consumption. 

      (cont....2)

-  2  -

Complainant further stated that his family consists of only 4 adults and 2 children and such a huge consumption of water never occurred.  Hence the complainant repeatedly requested the opposite parties to verify the water meter and in the month of August 2016 opposite parties permitted to change the water meter and opposite parties replaced it with a new water meter.  After changing the water meter, it was seen that consumption was very low.  So the complainant requested the opposite party to withdraw the defective bills from 12.1.2015 onwards and to issue corrected bills and to return the excess money collected from him.  The complainant also requested to issue a statement of his previous bills from 2010 onwards.  Aggrieved by the above request of the complainant, opposite party revengefully stopped the supply of the water from August 2016 onwards.  Due to that, the complainant and his aged wife were put in severe mental agony and hardships and caused much inconvenience.  Due to the defective service from the part of the 1st opposite party, complainant is constrained to avail water connection of Kerala Water Authority in the month of September 2016 and their monthly water charge is below Rs.500/-.  Matter being so, the 2nd opposite party issued a notice to the complainant on 10.1.2017 demanding to remit the water charge arrears or else the supply will be disconnected.  Complainant further stated that he is no way liable to pay the defective bills issued from 12.1.2015 at the same time, he is entitled to get refunded the amount which he paid upto 12.1.205.  Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite parties, complainant filed this petition seeking relief such as to direct the 1st opposite party to withdraw the defective bill from 12.1.2015 and also direct them to issue corrected bills from 2.1.2015 by taking the average consumption during the previous months and also direct them to pay cost and compensation.

 

The complaint was resisted by the 1st opposite party.  In their reply version, 1st opposite party contended that all the water consumers of KSEB have to execute an agreement for a period of 12 months for water connection and have to be renewed after every 12 months.  The last agreement executed by the complainant with the opposite party was on 3.2.2015 and it was expired on 2.2.2016.  Though this had been intimated to the complainant, in next water bill he had not taken any initiative to renew the same till date after clearing the bill arrears at present the water connection is unauthorised.

           

Opposite party further contended that, they updated the water bills of the same tariff of Kerala Water Authority and the enhancement of tariff of Kerala Water Authority is followed time to time by the opposite party also.  The water charges are calculated based on water meter reading.  The water meter is fixed 

(cont....3)

-  3  -

in the water line running from the water tank located at Vazhathoppe colony to the consumers' premises.  According to the reading of the complainant during the period from 4/15 to 6/15, the consumption of water was 171 kl/month and the water charges arrived at Rs.16,626/-.  On receiving the water bill, the complainant approached 1st opposite party and complained that, there is an error in taking water reading.  Thereafter the Sub Engineer of 1st opposite party along with the contractor of water supply works, checked the water meter reading in the presence of the complainant and it was found correct.  Thereafter the complainant lodged a petition before the Assistant Executive Engineer, Research and Dam Safety, seeking permission to test the water meter and as per direction of the Assistant Executive Engineer, and as per the direction of 1st opposite party, the water supply contractor detached the water meter from the line and satisfying this act, the complainant approached opposite parties and requested to reinstall the same water meter and reinstalled the same.  Here the complainant himself had admitted that the meter is in good working condition and the complainant convinced that the water meter reading for the period from 4/15 to 6/15 was genuine and he had agreed to remit the amount of Rs.16,626/- in four instalments, as sanctioned by the Assistant Executive Engineer.  Opposite party further contended that the water consumption from 7/15 to 10/15 was 134.5 kl per month on the basis of the water reading and water charges was calculated as Rs.16,408/-.  As per the request of the complainant, the opposite party allowed to remit it in four instalments and the complainant was remitted it.  Likewise, the bill amount of the period from 11/15 to 2/16 which is Rs.24568/- was also paid by the complainant by way of instalments.  But in the case of bill for the period 3/16 to 7/16 for Rs.21.900/- is still pending.  Opposite party further contended that, the consumer number in all bills except in the bill dated 25.7.2016 are same, i.e., No.3.  In the bill dated 25.7.2016 onwards, it was decided in the office of the 1st opposite party to enter the number of water meter also in the bill for all consumers in order to identify the change of water meter if any, during the agreement period, in addition to the present consumer number.  But it was by clerical mistake that the consumer number was omitted in this bill.  Further contended that, the complainant submitted a request on 17.5.2016 to the 1st opposite party to shift his water meter to a new place as the existing place is not safe, because the present location is under threat of falling jack fruits.  1st opposite party permitted to shift the water meter.  Though the sanction granted to changing the location, the     

complainant purchased a new water meter and produced it before the 1st opposite party office and on request 1st opposite party allowed for its installation, on 5.7.206.  The initial reading of the new water meter was 305 litres and it is admitted by the complainant in the 4th paragraph of the complaint.  

   (cont....4)

-  4  -

This shows that, there was a consumption of 40 kl after the installation of new meter and the water reading as on 17.3.2017 recorded as 00051.778.  All these proves that the statement of the complainant that the 1st  opposite party did not supplied drinking water from August 2016 is baseless.  Opposite party further contended that, after the installation of the new water meter, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and stated that he availed water connection of Water Authority in order to compare the water bills.  He also said that he has stopped using the water connection of the 1st opposite party, temporarily.  Opposite party further contended that after availing the water connection of water authority, there may be possibility of reduced water consumption.

 

Opposite party further contended that as no leakage was found in the line from the water tank to the water meter, he was also directed to check the line in between the water meter and supply end.  A severe leakage was noticed in the water line of the complainant's part by the water supply connection of the opposite party and the same was intimated to the office of the 1st opposite party.  This  may by one reason for abnormal reading.  Moreover, in his letter, the complainant himself has admitted that there was a leakage in the line of his part and rectified the same.  Opposite party further contended that the water bill is issued on the basis of water meter reading, it cannot be withdrawn or changed.  In the present case, it is due to the lapse on the part of the complainant that the leakage was un-noticed, eventhough instruction was given from the side of the 1st opposite party and thereby the complainant committed a major lapse in taking steps to correct the leakage.

 

Opposite party further contended that the maintenance of water meter as well as the water line in the consumer's side is the sole responsibility of the consumer.  The opposite party has never failed to supply water upto water meter till date and no such complaints from the complainant were received in any of the opposite party's office functioning under the office of the 2nd opposite party.

 

Hence there was no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.

 

On the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for  consideration (1) Whether the complainant had proved that there was deficiency

in service on the part of the opposite parties ?  (2)  Whether opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant as alleged ?  (3) Reliefs  and costs.

 

      (cont....5)

-  5  -

 

The evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 on the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R19 were marked on the side of 1st opposite party.  Exts.P1 to P4 are the bills issued by the opposite party dated 31.5.2010, 12.1.2015, 14.3.2016 and 25.7.2016 respectively.  Exts.P5 and P6 are the letter dated 10.1.2017 and 17.8.2016 issued by the 2nd opposite party.  Ext.P7 is the meter reading of Kerala Water Authority dated 17.5.2017.  Ext.R1 is the agreement with the complainant and KSEB Ltd. Ext.R2 is the copy of bill dated 14.3.2016.  Ext.R3 is the water authority tariff.  Ext.R4 is the tariff charges.  Ext.R5 is the copy of water bill dated 14.7.2015.  Ext.R6 is the copy of letter dated 22.8.2015.  Ext.R7 is the copy of meter reading.  Ext.R8 is the copy of letter dated 26.8.2015.  Ext.R9 is the copy of bill dated 2.12.2015.  Ext.R10 is the copy of letter given by the complainant.  Ext.R11 is the copy of letter dated 15.2.2016.  Ext.R12 is the order of the opposite party dated 19.2.2016.  Ext.R13 is the copy of letter of the opposite party dated 10.3.2016.  Ext.R14 is the copy of letter of the complainant dated 30.6.2016.  Ext.R15 is the copy of letter of 2nd opposite party dated 17.8.2016.  Ext.R16 is the copy of bill dated 25.7.2016.  Ext.R17 is the calculation of meter reading.  Ext.R18  is the copy of request dated 17.5.2016.  Ext.R19 is the copy of water meter test certificate dated 27.4.2016.  

 

The issues are considered together for the sake of convenience.  According to the complainant, he is a consumer of 1st opposite party with consumer No.3 from 1978 onwards.  His regular consumption was only a normal quantity of water and the water bill always a small amount for long years.  Unfortunately, the bills issued by the 1st opposite party in the year 2015 and onwards are exorbitant and without any justification.  From 12.1.2015, the bill began to off shoot.  The bill for water consumption for the period from 5/14 to 9/14 was only Rs.1240/-, that is, Rs.310/- per month.  But from bills issued by the opposite party in the year 2015 was Rs.16000/- and the bill issued on 14.3.2016 is Rs.24,568/- and the bill issued on 27.5.2016 is Rs.21,900/-.  Each and every time of receipt of such bills, complainant approached the opposite parties and given written requests for conducting a thorough inspection in the water connection.  As a law abiding citizen and a reputed person in the locality, the complainant forced to remit these off-shooted bills except the last bill dated 25.7.2016.  At last, on repeated request from the side of the complainant, the opposite parties permitted him to inspect the water meter and on inspection it is

found that it has no defects.  The complainant further submitted that his family consists of only 6 persons including 2 children and such a heavy consumption of water is hypothetical and cannot be imagine.  While changing the water 

      (cont....6)

-  6  -

 

meter to a new one with the permission of the opposite party, it was seen that the consumption was very low.  Hence the complainant requested the opposite party to withdraw the off-shooted and defective bills issued by them in the year 2015 and 2016 be withdrawn and issue a new corrected bill taking average consumption during the previous months.  Complainant further argued that without considering his request, the opposite party stopped the supply of water and the  complainant is constrained to avail water connection of the Kerala Water Authority.  Facts being so, the opposite party issued a demand notice on 10.1.2017 for remitting the water charge arrears within 10 days also stated that failing which they will disconnect the water supply.  The learned counsel further submitted that the opposite parties have no manner of right to disconnect the water supply of the complainant and he is entitled to get an order to withdraw all the disputed bills issued by the opposite parties by taking the average conception during the previous months.

 

The fact that the complainant is a consumer is admitted by the opposite parties and the factim of bills issued from 2015 onwards, according to the water meter reading and the consumption of water.  According to the learned counsel, who appeared for the opposite parties argued that, the connection was installed to the complainant by executing an agreement with the opposite party (Ext.R1).  Now the agreement is expired and the complainant is an unauthorised customer.  Eventhough the opposite party given proper intimation for renewing the agreement, the complainant failed to do so.  Moreover, each and every time of issuing the bills in question, complainant approached the authorities and submitted requests for allowing him to remit the bill amount in instalments and opposite party considered his requests positively.  Once the complainant complained that the reading was not taken correctly, then the Sub Engineer along with the contractor of water supply conducted thorough inspection in the water line and took reading in the presence of the complainant and found the reading was correct.  Again on the request of the complainant, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Research and Dam Safety Sub Division, Vazhathoppe, directed the water supply contractor to detach the water meter from the supply line for testing it and it was given to the complainant.  Later the complainant came to the office of 1st opposite party and informed that the water meter is tested ok and reinstalled as requested by him.

 

The learned counsel further argued that the purchase of water meter and maintenance of water line in the consumer's part is their responsibility as per the agreement conditions.  On receipt of a request from the complainant on 

      (cont....7)

-  7  -

 

17.5.2016, the 1st opposite party shifted the water meter to a new place as the existing location is under the threat of falling jack fruits and replaced a new water meter by replacing the old one.  The learned counsel for the opposite party further stated that the complainant himself admitted that there was a leakage in the water line under ground of his part and rectified the same.  It is evident from Ext.R10 letter.  It is also admitted by him at the time adducing oral evidence.  This leakage was noticed near the quarters No.F27 in Vazhathoppe colony and first noticed by the water supply contractor and intimated the same to the complainant.  The leakage in the complainant's part of water line and the defective plumbing system in his residence right have resulted in the increase of water meter reading.  Moreover, the water connection in question is not disconnected by the opposite party till date.  The complainant himself stated that the meter reading at the time of filing the complaint of the new meter installed during August 2016 is 00040.30., i.e., 40 kl and 300 ltr.  The date of filing the complaint was 31.1.2017.  At the same time, the complainant argued that the opposite party did not supplied drinking water from August 2016.  From this, it is evident that there is no base for the argument of the complainant that the opposite party had caused severe inconvenience to his family by disconnecting the water supply.

 

The counsel further argued that as per the old register of the opposite party's office, the consumer number of the complainant was 06 and as per the new register it is 03.  The error or not entering the consumer number and consumption in one of the bill issued to the complainant was only a clerical error and the consumption of that bill was properly entered in the water supply related register.  Further argued that as per the agreement clause, keeping the water line accessories including water meter of the complainant's part is the sole responsibility of the complainant and in the present case, the complainant failed to do so.  Hence no deficiency in service is happened on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint.  

 

With due  regard to the arguments of both the counsels, it is clear that the complainant is the water consumer of the opposite party electricity board from 1978 onwards and still it is continuing.  Unfortunately, he received some bills in the year 2015 and 2016 with exorbitant water charges.  On getting this bills, in its  first stage itself, he placed petition before the concerned authority and challenged its genuineness.  Eventhough he challenged the water meter reading,

as a law abiding as well as a prominent person in that locality, he remitted the water charges without any default.  At the same time, he inspected his water 

(cont....8)

-  8  -

meter and found it is correct and reinstalled.  On going through, the evidence on record, it is very clear that the bills in question issued by the opposite party is off-shooted one and opposite party cannot found any excess water consumption except the reading of the water meter.  Substantiating the version, opposite party relying upon Ext.R10 letter submitted by the complainant before the Executive Engineer.  In this letter complainant specifically stated that, Hcp ho«n C{Xbpw shffw D]-tbm-Kn-¡m³ Ign-bnà F¶ Imcyw hkvXp-X-bm-Wv.  D]-tbm-Kn-¨-Xp-a-Ã.    Water line Ipsd `mKw a®n-\-Sn-bn 4þ5 ASn XmgvN-bn-em-Wv.  ag-¡m-e-am-b-Xn-\m leak I­WvSp-]n-Sn-¡m-\p-ff {iaw hnP-bn-¨n-Ã.  2þ#m-as¯ _n h¶-t¸mÄ a®v amän leak I­WvSp-]n-Sn¨p ]cn-l-cn-¨p.  Zpcp-]-tbmKw sImt­WvSm a\:-]qÀÆamb A{i-²-sImtWvS­m kw`-hn-¨-Xà F¶Xp IW-¡n-se-Sp¯v thWvS­-Xp- sN¿Wsa¶`yÀ°n¡p¶p. From this exhibit, it is obvious that, the complainant admitted some leak in his pipe line and corrected it.  As per the letter, he admitted that the problem is solved after the receipt of the second bill.  As per the averements in the complaint, second bill for an amount of Rs.24568/- was issued to the complainant on 14.3.2016  for the period from 11/15 to 2/16.  As per the documents and averements, it is seen that complainant remitted the bills upto 14.3.2016.  Thereafter, after rectifying the defect of the pipe line, he remitted another bill for an amount of Rs.21900/- dated 25.7.2016 for the period from 3/16 to 7/16 (Ext.P4).  On a perusal of this exhibits, it is seen that consumer number is entered as 21291 and the  initial reading and final reading columns are empty.  No consumption of water is recorded herein.  Through Ext.R17, the opposite party tried to convince the calculation of bill amount.  This exhibit is a sheet of paper and having some calculations done by somebody and cannot be considered as a part of evidence.  On going through the Exts.P3 and P4 bills, we cannot find any calculation of water charges except the figure of amount.  It is the bounden duty of the opposite party to issue the bills which they are issuing is specific and unambiguous and consumer  can find out how they calculated the total consumption charges.  The  Exts.P3 and P4 bills under challenge are incomplete and having no basic details regarding the calculation of the water charges.  One of the bill is having no reading of water consumption at all.  On going through the evidence, the Forum is of a considered view that, the Exts.P3 and P4 bills are prepared by the opposite party carelessly and lacking basic details of water consumption and its calculation and this bill is having no legal footing.  

 

On the basis of the above discussion, the Forum directs the opposite parties to withdraw Exts.P3 and P4 bills on the reason that it lacks details of calculation of water charges and issue a detailed corrected bills, by taking the average consumption during the previous months and also directs 3rd opposite

 

       (cont....9)

-  9  -

party to issue a statement of bills from 2010 onwards to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  No cost or compensation  awarded.

 

            Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2018

Sd/-

  SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

         Sd/- 

SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1              -   Dr. P.C. Ravindranath. Forwarded by Order,

On the side of the Opposite Party :              

DW1              -  Lali P. Johns.

Exhibits :   SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

On the side of the Complainant :

Exts.P1 - P4    -  bills issued by the opposite party.  

Exts.P5 & P6 - letters dated 10.1.2017 and 17.8.2016 issued by the 2nd OP.

Ext.P7            - meter reading of Kerala Water Authority dated 17.5.2017.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1            -  agreement with the complainant and KSEB Ltd.

Ext.R2            - copy of bill dated 14.3.2016.  

Ext.R3            - water authority tariff.  

Ext.R4            - tariff charges.  

Ext.R5            - copy of water bill dated 14.7.2015.     

Ext.R6           - copy of letter dated 22.8.2015.                   

Ext.R7           - copy of meter reading.  

Ext.R8           - copy of letter dated 26.8.2015.  

Ext.R9           - copy of bill dated 2.12.2015.             

Ext.R10         - copy of letter given by the complainant.  

Ext.R11         - copy of letter dated 15.2.2016.  

Ext.R12         - order of the opposite party dated 19.2.2016.  

Ext.R13         - copy of letter of the opposite party dated 10.3.2016.  

Ext.R14         - copy of letter of complainant dated 30.6.2016.  

Ext.R15         - copy of letter of 2nd opposite party dated 17.8.2016.  

Ext.R16         - copy of bill dated 25.7.2016.  

Ext.R17         - calculation of meter reading.  

Ext.R18         - copy of request dated 17.5.2016.  

Ext.R19         - copy of water meter test certificate dated 27.4.2016.