THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.295/2015
Dated this the 8th day of August, 2019
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B. : Member
ORDER
Present: Hon’ble Sri. Joseph Mathew, Member
This petition is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The petitioner is running a Small Scale Industry Viz. Arabian Wood Industry for his livelihood as a means of self-employment. His case is that, he had taken a non-domestic water connection of the opposite party towards his industry as Consumer No. Z32/924/N on 12/07/2011. He had spent Rs.60,000/- for taking the connection. But the opposite party had disconnected his connection illegally on 09/06/2015. It is stated that, his firm is situated at the fag-end of the distribution line and so he was not getting water regularly but the bill amounts was highly excessive than the actual consumption of water. Though he had made several complaints before the opposite party against the excessive bill amounts, no positive action was taken by the opposite party on his complaints.
It is also stated that the water was using only to wash the hands and legs of two or three workers employed there. They have not used excess water at any time from the date of installation of water meter but even then the opposite party had issued bills for exorbitant amounts which was not based on the actual consumption of water. The disconnection of his water meter for not remitting the exorbitant bill amount is illegal and that caused much mental agony, huge financial loss and such other hardships to him. Hence this petition is filed to direct the opposite party to restore the water connection already disconnected and to regularize the highly exorbitant bill amounts issued by them based on the actual consumption of water and also for compensation for his sufferings and cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party filed version denying the allegations of the petitioners as false and baseless. It is contented that this petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. It is admitted that they have provided a non-domestic water connection to the petitioner’s Building No. 32/1563A as Consumer No.Z32/924/N on 12/07/2011. But it is stated that the bills were issued based on the meter reading of the petitioner. The reading of the petitioner’s meter in 29/10/2011 was 12 KL. Thereafter it gradually increased and on 25/04/2015 the reading was 1278 KL. At the time of disconnection on 09/06/2015 Rs.25,999/- was pending as arrears towards water charge from the petitioner and on 29/10/2015 the arrears was Rs.30,569/- including interest. The petitioner has not remitted any amount towards the arrears till date.
It is also stated that, from the meter reading it is found that during some periods the consumption was very high and this is the reason for the rise in the bill amount. The water meter is having IS specifications confirming to ISO 4064 testing media of water and so there is no chance of any fault in the meter. They are also ready to examine the water meter if the petitioner demands so. They have not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service and the bills issued to the petitioner was based on the reading of the meter. No loss or injury has been caused to the petitioner due to their acts and hence prayed to dismiss the petition with their cost.
The matters to be decided are:
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Reliefs and costs if any?
Evidence consists of the affidavits filed by the petitioner, the opposite party, Ext.s A1 to A7(a), B1, C1 and depositions of PW1, RW1, and CW1.
Point No. 1: The specific case of the petitioner is that the exorbitant bill amounts issued by the opposite party is not based on the actual consumption of water but based on the meter reading caused due to air passage. According to the petitioner he is running a small scale industry with the help of 3 employees from the beginning itself. The water of the opposite party is using only to wash the hands and legs of the employees working there. Moreover his firm is situated in a hilltop and at the fag-end of the distribution line and so he was not getting sufficient water most of the days in a year and the supply of water was also irregular. Even then the meter is showing high reading and that is only due to air pressure in the water pipeline. It is stated that, immediately after releasing the water from the tank and before the water reaches through the pipe the meter starts reading due to air pressure. Since the meter reading is due to air passage, he is not liable to pay the exorbitant bill amount of Rs.35,250/- as per Ext. A5 bill dated 25/06/2016.
But according to the opposite party, there is no chance of air entrapped into the pipeline since the location of the petitioner’s industry is much lower than the location of storage reservoir. Even if air is entrapped in the distribution line due to shut down of water supply scheme for long time it is released through the Air Valve provided by the authority at the highest point of elevation and wherever it needs. So the reading showed in the petitioner’s meter is the actual consumption of water. There is no complaints with the meter installed in the petitioner’s premises. Moreover they had installed a parallel meter (serial water meter) in the petitioner’s pipeline and the reading showed in that meter was also the same as that in the original meter. The opposite party produced the copy of consumer ledger of the petitioner from 8-2011 to 08-2015 and was marked as Ext. B1. Since there was no fault in the meter of the petitioner he is liable to pay the bill amounts along with the arrears.
Sri. Anilkumar, Supervisor of Mechanical engineering, NIT,
Calicut was appointed as expert to test the water meter of the petitioner at the site. He filed report stating that though he had visited the site two times, since there was no water in the pipe he could not test the meter. So the petitioner filed I.A.181/2017 for sending the water meter to the lab of National Institute of Technology, Calicut to examine whether there is any defect with the meter in recording consumption of water. This petition was allowed and the meter was tested at NIT and the report submitted was marked Ext. C1. In Ext. C1 it is reported that “Tests were conducted in the meter separately with flow of water and with Air flow and meter readings are well matching with the tank measurements and thus the water metre is a calibrated water meter.” But at the same time it is also reported that “Even at a low velocity of about 48 m/min, using air, the meter reads a discharge of 10cm3(litres.) ie. approx. 3000 lph. The bleeding pressure valve will not be suitable safety device at this velocity and at the present fitted position.” So from Ext. C1 report it is clear that the meter is showing reading equal to the consumption of 3000ltrs of water per hour when air is passing even at a low velocity about 48m/min. The specific case of the petitioner also is that when the pipe is opening air is passing in the absence of water and the meter is showing reading at that time also. Ext. C1 report also justifies the said contention of the petitioner.
Sri. P. Anilkumar, Supervisor of Mechanical Engineering, NIT, Calicut who had submitted Ext. C1 report was examined as CW1. He deposed that when he checked the meter by using air, the meter started to run in the same manner as it is functioning in water. He also deposed that Air Protection Valve is not properly functioning in this meter. The float valve used to stop further flow water when the tank is full will not work when air comes instead of water. The suggestion stated by the expert for avoiding the air problem is that “an air valve is to be connected just 150mtr. ahead of the petitioner’s connection point started. If it is done the entire air will be pushed out through the valve.” Another mistake pointed out by the expert on the part of the opposite party is that they have not fitted an air valve at the place from where the connection is taken from the main pipeline to the petitioner’s pipeline. Though the opposite party filed objection to the commission report Ext. C1 stating that even if any air entrapped in the distribution line it is released through the air valve already provided by the authority at relevant point of elevation, the deposition of CW1, the expert disproved the said contention of the opposite party as not true or correct. The petitioner and Sri. M. Sajeevan, Asst. Executive Engineer of the opposite party were examined as PW1 and RW1. But nothing has been borough out in favour of the opposite party in that examination.
According to the petitioner from the date of taking connection onwards only four persons including himself are working there. The opposite party also have no case that the petitioner had done any extension or any modification work in his industry or had employed more workers there in order to increase the water consumption from 12KL on 29/10/2011 to 1278 KL on 24/05/2015. Moreover in cross examination RW1 would say that when he visited the site of the petitioner before filing affidavit during the month of July 2018 he found only two persons working there (page 7-RW1).
So from Ext. C1 report and deposition of CW1, it is proved that though the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner was not faulty, it was recording reading when air was flowing through the pipe instead of water. So it is found that there is error in the meter reading and the exorbitant bill amount issued to the petitioner by the opposite party was not based on the actual consumption of water by the petitioner but due to the air passage through his pipeline. The consumers are liable only to pay the charges for the water actually they consumed and not to pay any amount calculated due to air problem.
So considering the facts stated and based on the evidence on record, it is found that Ext. A5 bill dated 25/06/2016 for Rs.35,250/- is not based on the actual consumption of water by the petitioner but on the false meter reading due to air problem and hence amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and so the petitioner is not liable to pay the said amount. Point No. 1 found accordingly.
Point No. 2: In view of findings in Pint No.1, we are of the view that this petition is to be allowed and Ext. A5 bill dated 25/06/2016 for Rs.35,250/- is to be cancelled.
In the result, the following order is passed.
Ext. A5 bill dated 25/06/2016 for Rs.35,250/- is cancelled. The opposite party is ordered to issue a fresh bill to the petitioner immediately on receipt of the order based on the average meter reading of the first 11 months of installation of the water meter on 12/07/2011 with periodical increase in water charge if any till the date of reinstallation of the meter after lab test and to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings which can be adjusted in the future bill amounts of the petitioner.
Dated this the 8th day of August, 2019
Date of filing: 11/06/2015
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Disconnection order dated 09/06/2015
A2. Demand & Disconnection Notice dated 23/10/2014
A3. Demand & Disconnection Notice dated 18/04/2015
A4. Demand & Disconnection Notice dated 01/07/2015
A5. Demand & Disconnection Notice dated 25/06/2015
A6. Copy of complaint filed before the opposite party
A7. Reply received under RTI
A7(A). Reply received under RTI
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
B1. Copy of Consumer Ledger of complainant
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Sajeevan (Complainant)
C1. Commission Report
CW1. P. Anilkumar (Expert Commission)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
RW1. Ancil George, D3 Quarters, Athanikkal, Westhill - 5
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
