O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Petitioner's case is as follows: Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party. Petitioner is remitting water charges promptly in advance. The opposite party on 9..7..2004 issued an additional bill for an amount of Rs. 3535/-to the petitioner for consumption of water from December 2003. In May 2006 the opposite party served a notice to the petitioner to change the water meter. The petitioner called a licensed plumber, permitted by the water authority, to change the water meter. When the meter was presented to the opposite parties office for testing, the opposite party asked the petitioner to remit an arrear bill for Rs. 5220/- -2- for a period from June 2003 to May 2006. According to the petitioner no bills were issued to him legally. The petitioner states that the building of the petitioner is not occupied by anybody and no water is consumed for a long time. The opposite party had not allowed petitioner to fix the tested meter due to the said arrear bill. So, the water to the petitioner's premises was blocked. According to the petitioner the disconnection of the water connection without issuing bill is illegal and so he prays for an order to arrive at the actual water consumption of his residence and to arrive at the correct amount for the arrear bill and allow the petitioner to fix a defect free water meter to the water line without any delay and also he prays for allowing costs and compensation. The opposite party filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. They admitted that the petitioner is their consumer. According to the opposite party the petitioner is not prompt in remiting the water charges. As a part of the computerisation billing units, attached with water Sub Division the opposite party updated all the consumer register. Accordingly on 9..7..2004 arrear bill for an amount of Rs. 3535 for a period from December 2003 to May 2006 was issued to the petitioner and the said bill was admitted by the petitioner. On 30..10..2003 on inspection by the meter reader it was found that the water meter was faulty and said fact was intimated to the petitioner for replacement of faulty meter. The petitioner instead of replacing the faulty meter unauthorisedly dismantled the meter and is using water without meter. According to the opposite party an arrear of Rs. 6622/- as on 30..11..2006 is due from the petitioner and he is still consuming water without any meter. Opposite party contented that in August 2006 the demand cum disconnection notice was issued to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner that he is not occupying the house is denied by the -3- opposite party. The opposite party contented that bills were issued as per rules and no relief prayed by the petitioner is allowable. Points for determination are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? ii) Reliefs and costs. Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner Ext. A1 to A11 documents, opposite parties evidence consists of affidavit filed by them and Ext. B1 document. Point No. 1 As per Regulation 13 (b) of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations 1991. The authority may fix the monthly rate of water charges of a consumer based on his average consumption of water for any previous six months in case of existing connection. The regulation also state that 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 observation of the meter readings taken in subsequent six months to the last period. The opposite party produced a computer print of the consumer ledger the said document is marked as Ext. B1. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that the meter reading is taken on 10..11..2001, 20..9..2002, 30..5..2003 and 30..12..2003. The average consumption is calculated by taking the average meter reading in between 20..9..2002 and 30..5..2005. We are of the opinion that the said calculation of average consumption is not proper. As per Regulation 13 (b) of 1991 the authority ought to have taken the meter reading for the previous six month and fix the monthly charges for the existing connection. Here the authority had fixed the monthly charges without complying -4- regulation 13 (b). Even after the lapse and latches on the part of the opposite party, in taking meter reading and fixing charges from Ext. B1 it can be seen that fine was imposed against the petitioner in his monthly water charges. The petitioner produced a reply letter, received from the Assistant Engineer of the opposite party the said letter is marked as Ext. A4. Ext. A4 is an answer to a query given by the petitioner as per provision of Right to Information Act. As answer to the question regarding fixing of the charges the Assistant Executive Engineer had given a deceitful reply in an evasive manner to the petitioner. What S. 13 (b) says is that. The authority may fix the monthly rate of water charges of a consumer based on the average consumption of water for any previous six months in case of existing water connection. But here in Ext. A4 as answer to question No. 4 the Asst. Executive Engineer had given the reply by purposefully removing ing the said period of '6 months' from 13 (b) and quoting it as any previous months. We are of the opinion that a responsible officer like an Assistant Engineer is not supposed to decieve or mislead a poor consumer. So we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be penalised for the lapse and latches on the part of the opposite party. Issuing Addl. Bill after years according to the whims and willfullness of the opposite party is inadequency in the quality, shortcoming or standard which is required to be maintained under the law for the time being in force.From Ext. B1 it can be seen that the additional bill was issued for recovering amounts beyond 3 years. The Hon'ble National Commission in Hariyana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Aggarwal Ice Factory, reported in 2007 CTJ 927 had stated that recovery beyond 3 years was time barred. So, we are of the opinion that issuance of bill after 3 years according to -5- the whim and willfullness of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service. So point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the findings in point No. 1, petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs sought for. In the result the opposite parties claim of additional bill amount of Rs. 5721/- is found unsustainable. So, the said bill is cancelled. The opposite party is ordered to issue a revised bill as per Regulation 13 of water supply regulation without levying penal charges and the opposite party is not allowed to claim bills for recovering amounts for a period up to which limitation of 3 years will apply. The petitioner is directed to produce a water meter to the opposite party. The opposite party is ordered to follow the procedure mentioned in Regulation 12 of Water supply regulation and fix the water meter . The opposite party shall fix he monthly water charges of petitioner as per Regulation 13 (b) of water supply regulation for the petitioners future consumption. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. No cost and compensation is ordered. The order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of May, 2008.
......................Bindhu M Thomas ......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
