DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 16th day of August, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 19/05/2015
CC/71/2015
Gokulraj C.,
S/o.Gopalan,
Sreerupa,
Chandranagar, Palakkad – 678 007
(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan) - Complainant
Vs
1.Assistant Executive Engineer,
P.H.Division, KWA,
Kalmandapam, Palakkad
2.Managing Director,
Jala Bhavan, KWA,
Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram
3.The Executive Engineer,
P.H.Division, KWA,
Kalmandapam, Palakkad - Opposite parties
(OPs by Adv.R.Gangadharan)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Pleadings abridged depicts that the complainant, a senior citizen, living in the premises to where the water connection is provided with his wife and daughter is aggrieved by the exorbitant and illegal bills for Rs. 13,628/-, Rs. 29,150/- and by non-refund of Rs. 9724/- which he alleges was paid by way of installment. Subsequently, the complaint was amended to add details pertaining to bills issued post filing of this complaint.
Complaint grievance is that he availed water connection during 1991. He was not receiving water for many years. Even after repeated requests, he was not getting water. But his meter functions when his neighbor uses his jet pump. Eventhough he had given a complaint on 05.04.2014, there was no action whatsoever on the part of the opposite parties. His water charges are fixed at Rs.189/- considering his monthly consumption. But without taking into consideration his monthly consumption, the opposite parties are billing the complainant for over Rupees Ten thousand monthly.
During 2010 and 2012, when he received such exorbitant bills, he had filed complaints before the Consumer Commission and had availed orders in his favour. Presently the exorbitant amounts he had remitted by way of three installments were not accounted. Such misappropriations had happened earlier during 2009 also. As already stated supra, the complainant sought for quashing the bills for Rs.13,628/-, Rs.29,150/-, refund of Rs.9,724/- and for a direction to opposite parties for fixing his bill @Rs.189/- per month.
- The opposite parties filed version refuting complaint allegations. The complainant is receiving water. His average monthly consumption during 14/2/2015 to 12/4/2015 is 76 KL. Prior to that the consumption was 95.85 KL and 47.74 KL. The complainant used to file frivolous complaints before various authorities against these opposite parties. His domestic connection was inspected on various occasions. There is no evidence that the complainant’s neighbor is availing water using jet pump and complainant’s meter functioning in an excessive manner owing to neighbor’s use is beyond comprehension. Relief of fixing of complainant’s slab at Rs.189/- per month cannot be allowed since after fixation the tariff during 2009, tariff had been revised and increased on various occasions. The complainant was never a regular payer of bills, but a chronic defaulter and would pay only in part. The opposite parties had detailed the monthly remittance and defaults by the complainant in their version. The complainant’s is liable to pay the water he had used. After highlighting various proceedings before various authorities to substantiate that the complainant is a chronic and vexatious litigant, the opposite parties sought for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The following issues are framed for consideration
- Whether the excess reading occurred on account of the misuse of water by the complainant’s neighbor?
- Whether the assailed bills for Rs. 13,628/- and 29,150/- issued by the opposite parties are excessive and exorbitant?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service / unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs as sought for?
- Reliefs, if any ?
5. Evidence on the part of complainant comprised of Ext.A1 to A23 and testimony of the complainant as PW1. Opposite parties marked Ext.B1 to B5 and witness for opposite party deposed as DW1.
Issue No. 1
6. This complaint is filed seeking a number of reliefs, all of which, as alleged by the complainant in unnumbered paragraph 2 of the complaint arose out of the misappropriation of water by his neighbor, Hari, who used a jet pump to illegally extricate water from the KWA’s water line. But, while being cross examined, the complainant took a volte-face and stated that he does not have a complaint regarding the neighbor taking water illegally. He also admitted that the neighbour’s alleged misappropriated has got no connection whatsoever with the bills issued to him in page 2, lines 10 to 17 and lines 1 to 10 in page 3.
Hence, we need not look deep into this issue.
Issue No.2
7. Originally the complaint was filed assailing Exts A9 & A10 bills for Rs. 13,628/- and Rs. 29,150/- respectively and for refund of installments remitted, the complaint was amended so as to bring in bills issued post filing of this complaint also into the impugned list. Even though the cause of excess bill being issued to the complainant was withdrawn, the complainant still holds on to the allegation of excess bills being issued to wreak vengeance on him for filing consumer complaints against the opposite parties. The opposite parties have refuted his allegations that the meter reading shown by the complainant’s meter is highly excessive and bills were not being issued in accordance with consumption of water.
8. As per the deposition of PW1, the present grievance of the complainant can be summarized by reproducing his testimony.
Page (2) lines 17 to 23. “water authority meter faulty …. BsW¶p ]dªp.. 10/2/2016\p Hcp notice X¶ncp¶p. Witness adds Rm³ AXn\p tijvw Rm³ ¹w_dns\bpw sImv OP bpsS ASp¯v sN¶t¸mÄ Asst.Engineer case \ne \n¡p¶XpsImv meter default amÁ F¶p ]dªp.”
Page (6) lines 17 & 18 “water authority F\n¡v sXÁmb bill Xcp¶XmWv ]cmXn. meter tISmbXpsImmWv sXÁmb bill hcp¶Xv”
The clear case of the complainant is that the meter is faulty. With his earlier allegation regarding his motor showing excess reading owing to neighbor’s use discarded during cross examination, he is left with no further reason to offer for the allegation of faulty meter being the cause of issuance of excess bills. To a clear question by the counsel for opposite parties as to the reason for not taking out a commission to prove his allegations, the complainant answers thus in Page (3) lines 18 to 21 “Fsâ meter se reading Aà bill  FgpXnbn«pÅXp. AXmsWsâ hmZw. tImSXnbn \n¶pÅ commissionersd sImp ]cntim[n¸n¨m meter se bYmÀ° reading ImWm³ ]ÁnÃ.”
9. A reading of the deposition goes to show that the acrimony fomented by the complainant towards the opposite parties had been going on for over a decade. The entire decade had been eventful with the complainant filing various complaints as against the opposite parties before various Fora. On two occasions, this Commission had directed the opposite party to issue fresh bills to the complainant. The orders in the said complaints, marked as Exhibits A14 and A15, filed before this Commission shows that on both these occasions the opposite parties had failed to adduce proper evidence in support of their case and it is owing to this improper conduct of the case that their case was lost.
10. It is pertinent to note that the complainant himself has no case that he had been remitting amounts for the bills issued to him. On the contrary, his contention is that he is not remitting the amounts as the said demand cum disconnection notices were issued to him in an illegal manner. He deposed that he had not remitted amounts for which installment facilities were provided to him at his behest by the opposite parties.
Page 4, lines 9 – 12 2006 PqWn ]Ww AS¨Xn\v tijw 2009 PqWnemWv Rm³ ASp¯ ]Ww AS¨Xv. 2009 PqWn 2000/ cq] AS¨p. AXv Hcp installment BWv. BsI ASbv¡m\pmbncp¶Xv 7142/ cq]bmbncp¶p.
Page 5, lines 1 – 16 A¶v Rm³ ASbv¡m\pÅ bill 12892/ cq]bmWv F¶v ]dªm F\nt¡mÀ½bnÃ. AXn\v water authority 5 installment B¡n X¶ncp¶p F¶v ]dªm icnbmWv. Witness adds Rm³ Bhiys¸« {]ImcamWv installment B¡n X¶Xv. 2/4/2014\v BWv 2000/ cq] AS¨Xv. 2..mw installment sabv 2015\v AS¨p. 3Dw, 4Dw installment AS¨n«nÃ. 2/8/2014\v Rm³ hopw installment Bhiys¸«n«nÃ. 2/8/2014\v 10195/ cq] IpSnÈnI Dmbncp¶t¸mÄ Rm³ 3,000/ cq] AS¨p F¶p ]dªm icnbmWv. AXn\v tijw Rm³ H¶pw AS¨n«nÃ. ASbv¡m¯Xnsâ ImcWw icnbmbn consume sNbvX shůnsâ XpIbmb 719/ cq] am{Xta ASbvt¡XpÅp. Additional bill ASbvt¡XnÃ.
11. Yet again, as to why the complainant is under the impression that his bills are excessive is rather strange. The reasons as to why the complainant is under an impression that his bill are excessive can be summarized partly from his pleadings and partly from the depositions.
In paragraph 3 of the memorandum of complaint, the complainant states that his per month tariff was fixed Rs.189/- by the Assistant Engineer. In the ‘Reliefs’ portion of the memorandum of complaint(4th sheet) also, the complainant seeks an order from this Commission to the opposite parties to regularize the bills at Rs.189/-.
Ext.A11 is the photocopy of a provisional invoice card issued to the complainant for consumption for 33.7 KL with rate fixed as Rs.189/-.
In page (5) of his deposition, line 15, the complainant deposes that he is bound to pay only Rs.719/-.
So we can find that the crux of all disputes between the complainant and the opposite parties is that the complainant is under the impression that he is entitled to be billed only at the rate of Rs.189/- per month that was fixed during 2009. The complainant has not taken into account the escalation of water tariff over the years, or that the water charges are directly proportional to the increase of usage thereof.
12. The complainant has also not adduced any evidence to prove that his meter was functioning properly after having filed a complaint before this Commission. Further he has not cared to disprove or even raise an objection to the pleadings of the opposite parties in his proof affidavit.
Page 6, lines 10 – 13. OPbpsS Bt£]¯nepw, affidavitepw, ImWn¨n«pÅ Imcy§Ä H¶pw Fsâ affidavit \ntj[n¨p ImWp¶nÃ. Fs´¦nepw ImcWw Dtm (Q) No answer.
13. We cannot hold that the view taken by the complainant that once he was provided with a rate of tariff, that rate would remain unchanged in perpetuity. The complainant also has failed to prove his contention that a Commissioner appointed by this Commission will not be able to find any defects in the meter. The complainant has not sought for a parallel connection to ascertain as to whether the meter is faulty or not. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the meter is running properly and there is no defects what so ever in the meter and that the complainant does not want the meter inspected by this Commission. The witness for the opposite party was also not cross examined on the documents, especially on Ext.B1 consumer details wherein the entire details of consumption of water by the complainant is shown.
Even at the time of hearing, counsel for the complainant vehemently stuck to his gun that the complainant is not liable to pay the bills if the opposite parties are not acting in accordance with the statutes and regulations as applicable to them.
To put it bluntly, the complainant has no case other than that the complainant is entitled to be charged only at the rates fixed at 2009 tariff alone and any other bills are not acceptable as they are on the north of 2009 tariff and as such not acceptable to the complainant. The complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands.
Therefore we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that Exts.A9 & A10 and subsequent bills were illegal, exorbitant and not prepared in accordance with the tariff as applicable to the complainant. The complainant has also failed to prove that any amounts are due to him from the opposite parties.
Issue No.3
14. Pursuant to discussions above, we hold that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
Issue No.4 & 5
15. As already stated above the complainant has failed to prove that there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Therefore, he is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.
16. The entire dispute which started more than a decade above, was at the insistence of the complainant that his meter malfunctioned when his neighbour used jet pumps.
Subsequently this grievance of the complainant was found to be baseless. The complainant has not taken any steps to substantiate his grievance by way of cogent evidence. He still keeps his dispute fomenting on the ground that the bills are illegal and exorbitant because they went above the 2009 tariff which was provisionally fixed for him.
We cannot agree to the reasoning of the complainant which is at the best childish and importunate. The opposite parties were pulled into a number of litigations/disputes which were unsubstantiated and malicious in nature for which they are entitled to a reasonable cost.
We fix the cost at Rs.5,000/- payable by the complainant to the opposite parties within 45 days from receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open court on this the 16th day of August, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Copy of communication dated 5/4/14
Ext.A2 series - 3 Original of invoices
Ext.A3 – Original of D&D notice dated 10/2/14
Ext.A4 – Original receipt dated 10/2/14
Ext.A5 - Original D&D notice dated 3/4/14
Ext.A6 – Original receipt dated 3/4/2014
Ext.A7 – Original D&D notice dated 9/6/2014
Ext.A8 – Original receipt dated 9/6/2014
Ext.A9 – Original D& D notice dated 6/2/15
Ext.A10 – Original D&D notice dated 8/4/15
Ext.A11 – Photocopy of provisional invoice card bearing consumer no.173/MRD
Ext.A12 – Photocopy of receipt dated 18/6/2009
Ext.A13 – Copy of judgment dated 5/11/2011 in Appeal No.731/2011 on the file of SCDRC, Kerala
Ext.A14 – Copy of order dated 17/11/2012 in CC/144/2012 on the file of DCDRC, Palakkad
Ext.A15 – Copy of order dated 27/07/2011 in CC/176/2010 on the file of DCDRC, Palakkad
Ext.A16 – Original of D&D notice dated 10/6/2015
Ext.A17 - Original of D&D notice dated 6/8/2015
Ext.A18 - Original of D&D notice dated 08/10/2015
Ext.A19 - Original of D&D notice dated 08/2/2016
Ext.A20 - Original of D&D notice dated 5/10/2016
Ext.A21 - Original of D&D notice dated 08/12/2015
Ext.A22 - Original of D&D notice dated 05/12/2016
Ext.A23 - Original of D&D notice dated 04/02/2017
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 – True copy of consumer details of consumer No.MRT/173/D
Ext.B2 – True copy of reply dated 18/8/2015 submitted by Ops before Kerala State Human
Rights Commission
Ext.B3 - True copy of Ext.A15
Ext.B4 - True copy of Ext.A14
Ext.B5 – True copy of complaint dated 27/5/14 filed by complainant before superintendent
of police Palakkad alongwith connected documents.
Court Exhibit
Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
PW1 – Gokul Raj
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
DW1 – Raju, Asst.Exe.Engineer, KWA
Court Witness
Nil
Cost : Rupees Five thousand only allowed as cost.
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
