By Miss. R. K. Madanavally, Member

The facts of the case in brief is as follows:-

1. The complainant herein is a Senior Citizen aged 78 years old who is in possession of two houses in Malappuram Municipality with numbers 872 and 873 respectively. The former house is having Water Consumer Connection No.3242 and the later is having connection No.2493. The complainant was regularly paying the monthly rent and upto this date he had not make any dues towards opposite parties.

2. The complainant had received two bills dated, 18-07-2011 from 1^st opposite party for the over consumption of water for a period from 6/08 to 7/11. The above said bills receipt Nos.310 and 311 shows an amount of Rs.64,958/- and Rs.35,497/- respectively. The complainant submits that the average monthly rate of the consumer No.2493 was Rs.82/- which was increased to Rs.2,392/- and the average monthly rate of the Consumer No.3242 was Rs.98/- which was increased to 4,217/- and both these entries were noted in the invoice card.

3. The complainant's case is that, his family is a small family and in both houses they are using less quantities of water and moreover, for their own domestic purpose they are using the water in the well. In the above well one motor pump and two taps were fitted also. There arise no situation for using water in an excessive quantity as alleged by the two bills by opposite parties. As soon as he got the bill, he approached the opposite parties and the opposite parties advised him to pay the bills and if there is any complaint in the bill, they will adjust it. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite parties many a times but it was of no avail and the complainant alleges deficiency upon the opposite parties and that is why they issued the bills in disputes. Hence this complaint.

4. By denying the material allegations in the complaint opposite parties filed their detailed version. According to them, the total consumption is calculated for a period of 25 months. So, as per consumer No.2493, the meter reading is shown as 4059. So total consumption for one month is 130 kilo litre and monthly rent is noted as Rs.2,392/-. So also, in consumer No. 3242, the meter reading is shown as 8599. So consumption for one month is 230KL/month and monthly rent is Rs.4,217/-.

5. The opposite parties had inspected the two houses of the complainant and find out that the complainant had put up 2000, 1000 and 500 litres capacity of water tank in consumer No.3242 and 300 and 1000 litres capacity of water tank in consumer No.2493. They further find out that, the two meter points in both consumer numbers were inter connected. So that water will flow to both consumer numbers in the same time. So there was a possibility of over flowing the water and the same was convinced by the opposite parties to the complainant.

6. It was noticed by the opposite parties that the meter of the consumer No.3242 is functioning properly and in consumer No.2493, when filling 100 litres of water, 150 litres are shown in the meter. So 50% additional consumption is shown in the meter. The opposite parties vehemently alleges that the complainant had constructed a new house and for the above purpose he had used water from Kerala Water Authority. All the construction works were done by the complainant in the alleged period.

7. The complainant closed the consumer No.2493 and used water from consumer No.3242. That is why no defect is caused to the meter of consumer No.3242. The amount of the bill issued by Kerala Water Authority will increase according to the stage of consumption. Here two houses are using water under one consumer number and so the monthly consumption is shown as 203KL.

8. The details of both consumer bills were also mentioned by opposite parties in their written version. Moreover they had calculated the bills according the meter reading and as per the new Tariff. Hence the complainant is liable to pay the two bills dated, 18-07-2011. The other prayers were also challenged by the opposite parties.

9. Now the main issues are:-

7. 1. (i) Whether the complainant is liable to pay the two bills for an amount of Rs.35,497/- and Rs.65,958/- in consumer numbers 2493 and 3242 respectively to opposite parties?

(ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

(iii) If so reliefs and costs.

10. Point No.(i) to (iii):-

As per I.A.250/12 an Adv. Commissioner was appointed by this Forum and he had submitted a detailed report with sketch which was marked as Ext.C1(s). The commissioner has stated that the complainant and his family is residing in house No.2 wherein two fiber Tanks were seen which consists of 1000 litre and 500 litre respectively. In the northern portion of the complainant's house one more Water Tank was seen but it was not used at present. The commissioner also reported that the complainant is unaware about the inter connection and it was fitted by opposite party's licensed plumber. In order to prevent the over flow of the water, 'Balls' were also attached. In the 1^st floor of the house No.2 there was a water Tank which consists of water from the Well, not from opposite parties. It is noted as 3 in sketch. The concerned pipe is noted as “GH”.

11. In the house No.3 also there was a water Tank of 2000 litre but they are not using the water of opposite parties.

12. The newly constructed building is sited as 5 in the sketch. In the northern portion there is a well having adequate water. The commissioner could not calculate the quantity of water which was used for the construction of work.

13. In the noted portion of 'K' in sketch also there is no proof of using water of opposite parties. But there was an earlier connection. No proof of using water by opposite parties had seen by the commissioner. Here also water is collecting from the well which is sited as 5. So also in the quarters which was noted as 4, commissioner had not seen any water connection by opposite parties. The well which was situated in the back portion of the above said quarters was having enough water. Altogether two wells were seen by the commissioner with sufficient water and no agriculture was seen in the schedule also.

14. A thorough analysis of the commission report reveals the fact that the complainant and his whole family was using more water in their well than the water of Kerala Water Authority. The only positive aspect which help the opposite parties was the construction of new building. But there is no evidence to prove the use of quantity of water for the above purpose.

15. Ext.A1 to A4 was marked on the side of the complainant. Oral evidence was also adduced by the son of the complainant. The oral evidences are tallying with the commissioner's Report. The re-examination portion reveals the fact that there are two wells in their compound with adequate water. They are using the opposite party's water for the last 16 years and upto this date no complaint was noted by opposite party or the complainant in the meter. The only doubt is with regard to the construction of building. But no evidence to prove that complainant had used opposite party's water for the building construction. In the deposition of the DW1 we find that “വിവിധ കപ്പാസിറ്റികള്‍ ഉള്ള നാലഞ്ച് TANK കണ്ടെത്തി. പണി തീരാത്ത ഒരു വീടുണ്ട്‌. Inter connection കാരണം ഒന്ന് പൂട്ടിയിട്ടാലും മറ്റേ മീറ്ററിലൂടെ എല്ലാ ടാങ്കുകളിലും വെള്ളമെത്തിക്കാം.”

16. Perhaps that might have the cause of disconnecting the connection and issuance of demand notice by opposite party. This statement will make it clear from his further cross, Inter connection നടത്തിയതുകൊണ്ട് ഉപഭോക്താവിന് ലഭിക്കുന്ന നേട്ടമെന്താണ്? Ans: ഒന്ന് പൂട്ടിയിട്ടാലും മറ്റേ മീറ്ററിലൂടെ വെള്ളം ഉപയോഗിക്കാം. പൂട്ടിയിട്ട മീറ്റര്‍ work ചെയ്യുകയേയില്ല.”

17. Opposite party is still upon the point that by using one consumer number, two houses are enjoying the consumption of water. This is the reason for which consumption of water became 203KL per month. Since the consumption is increased amount is also increased ie., Rs.4,217/-.

18. As far as a Senior Citizen is concerned, they are entitled to get some special privileges under Rule 26 of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant herein is a Senior Citizen aged 75 years.

19. In the result, we allowed the complaint in part and hereby order that the two disputed bills are hereby cancelled and the complainant is directed to pay the 60% of each bills in dispute with the opposite party. No costs. As per IA-192/11 this Forum has directed the complainant to deposit Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) in each bills before this Forum. If opposite parties were received the said amount, that amount shall be deducted from the above amount of 60%.

Dated this 30^th day of April, 2014.

1. sd/-

K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT

sd/-

R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER

sd/-

MINI MATHEW, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1

PW1 : Abdul Hakeem, complainant's son.

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4

Ext.A1 : Provisional Invoice Card-domestic in respect of consumer No.3242

Ext.A2 : Provisional Invoice Card-domestic in respect of consumer No.2493

Ext.A3 : Demand notice dated, 18-07-2011 for Rs.65,958/- by opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A4 : Demand notice dated, 18-07-2011 for Rs.35,471/- by opposite party to complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B3

Ext.B1 : Sketch of the two house and two water meter.

Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the Consumer Personal Ledger of Consumer No.2493

Ext.B3 : Photo copy of the Consumer Personal Ledger of Consumer No.3242

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : DW1

DW1 : Kararudheen.A.P., Fitter, Kerala Water Authoriy.

Court Document marked : Ext.C1

Ext.C1 : Commissioner's report.

sd/-

K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT

sd/-

R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER

sd/-

MINI MATHEW, MEMBER