Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/672

SASIDHARAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asst. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY - Opp.Party(s)

C S RAJMOHAN

08 Aug 2017

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL.NO.672/2016

JUDGMENT DATED : 24.10.2017

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.407/2013 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram, order dated : 15.07.2016)

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN          : PRESIDENT

SRI.V.V.JOSE                                                   : MEMBER

APPELLANT

          Sasidharan, T.C.42/1413, Sreevaraham, Thiruvananthapuram

                   By Advocate Sri.C.S.Rajmohan

RESPONDENT

The Kerala Water Authority, Chalai Section, Kuriathy, Manacaud, Thiruvananthapuram

          By Advocate Sri..Issac Samuel

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

SHRI.V.V.JOSE  : MEMBER:

          This is an appeal filed by the Compalainant against the order of  dismissal of his complaint, numbered as CC No.407/2013 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Thiruvananthapuram.

          2.  The case of the complainant in a nutshell is as follows:

          3.  Complainant is a consumer of the opposite party M/s Kerala Water Authority with Consumer No.MDD/7126 and Meter No.9458 Consumer ID No.2113126872.  Complainant paid his water charges regularly.  Monthly consumption charges varied from Rs.100/- to 800/-.  He was using water only for domestic purposes.

          4.  Complainant received a bill for Rs18284/- on 06.09.2013 with disconnection date was 21.10.2013 showing meter reading on 11.9.13 as 2066 KL and previous reading on 11.09.2013 as 2046 KL.  Asserting that he had not used that much water, complainant approached the forum with the complaint to set aside the bill dated 06.09.2013 with other prayers.

          5.  Opposite party appeared on notice and contested  the case filing a version.  According to the opposite party that average monthly consumption of water  from 11/2012 to 6/2013 was 129.56 KL and  water charges thereof was Rs.2381.  Previous meter reading taken on 8.11.2012 showed 994 KL and thereafter in Janury, March and May 2013 reading could not taken from water meter and it was recorded not clear.  Next reading taken on 13.7.2013 showed  reading of 2046 KL. Water charges for the  period from 11/2012 to 6/2013 was determined with reference to previous reading of 9.11.2012 and reading taken on 13.7.2013, and the average monthly water consumption was fixed at 129.56 KL.  The bill amount claimed was just, proper and correct, according to opposite party.

          6.  The forum below had passed an interim order dated 11.04.2014 directing installing of a new meter by the complainant, and  opposite party was asked to raise a fresh bill for the disputed period after taking recording of the new meter.  Meter was replaced on 30.05.2014.

          7. The evidence of the case consists of proof affidavit and documents Exts.P1 and P2 marked by the Complainant.  Opposite party also filed proof affidavit and Ext.D1 document marked. The forum analysing the facts and appreciating materials mainly relying on clause 42(A) of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewage (amendment) Act 2008 held that quantity indicated by the meter has to be presumed as consumed until the contrary is proved.  The lower forum holding that the Complainant failed to prove his case dismissed the complaint.

          8.  Aggrieved by the above Order the complainant  has preferred this appeal.

          9.  Heard both counsels and perused the records.. We find that opposite party after filing version to the  complaint had filed an additional version  making a just assessment over monthly water consumption for the disputed period after  installation  of a new meter by complainant on the basis of interim orders passed by the forum.  The forum under the interim order passed for installation of new meter has directed opposite party “to raise a fresh bill for the disputed period on the basis of average actual consumption for 6 months.”  Complying with that direction,  opposite party reassessed the water consumption for eight months – November 2012 to 6/2013 as follows:

High consumption reported period                   November 2012 to 6/2013

Total water charge during the period       2381X8= 19048

Average consumption from the new meter      13.1 kl

Water charge having 13.3 kl                    Rs.62/- pm

Total amount as per the new average     62X8=496/-

Difference                                                 19048-496=18552

  Opposite party making such reassessment had agreed to  waive by Rs.18552/-

          10.  The opposite party has not objected to or questioned the interim order of the  forum.    More than that complying with that Order opposite party was prepared to waive the amount  based on recording  made under the new meter installed.  It had also requested for waiving the amount of Rs.18552/- respecting the direction under interim Order.  When that be the case, Ext.P1 bill claiming Rs.18,284/- for the disputed period issued to complainant was only to be  set aside, and it is ordered accordingly.

          In the result, reversing the Order of dismissal of  complaint by the forum below Ext.P1 bill for Rs.18,284/- issued to complainant is set aside. Appeal is allowed directing both sides to suffer their costs.       

         

JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN:  PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V.JOSE                            :  MEMBER

pr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE KERALA STATE              CONSUMER DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSIION

VAZHUTHACAUDE,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

          JUDGMENT IN  A.672/2016

         DATED : 24.10.2017