CC No.1482.2016

Filed on 05.11.2016

Disposed on.07.11.2018

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 7^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1482/2016

PRESENT:

Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, B.Sc., LL.B.,

                        PRESIDENT

                  Smt. L.MAMATHAB.A. (Law), LL.B.,

                           MEMBER,

     V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 05.11.2016 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Party, Quash the bill No.SE228038100 dated 01.10.2016 for the sum of Rs.15,484/- issued by the Opposite Party, to remove the newly installed faulty water meter and to replace the same with a good and normal working meter at the residence of the Complainant, to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and other reliefs.  
2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that he is the registered consumer of water connection vide R.R.No.S.E-228048/T8/12 in her house situated at No.164, 16^th Main Road, 4^th ‘T’ Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-41.  The Complainant has obtained the water connection for domestic purpose.  The Complainant has an average usage of water for domestic purpose ranging from 15000 to 20000 liters per month and she was getting water bills ranging from Rs.300/- to a maximum limit of Rs.600/- per month.  The Complainant was regular and prompt in payment of the water charges as per the bills to the Opposite Party.  In the Month of June 2016 the officials of the Opposite Party installed a new water meter to the water connection in the Complainant’s house.  Thereafter the Complainant was shocked to receive water bill for the month of June 2016 for a sum of Rs.4,809/- and the meter reading shown water consumption of 73000 liters through her water connection. 

3. Immediately the Complainant brought to notice of the Jurisdictional BWSSB officials regarding the excess of water billing charges and requested to verify and inspect the newly installed water meter.  The officials of the BWSSB were reluctant to consider the humble request and grievance of the Complainant.  Hence the Complainant was constrained to place the matter before the Water Adalat.  The Water Adalat, after considering the grievance of the Complainant and looking into the documentary evidence and materials placed by her, was pleased to waive off the bill amount claimed for the month of June-2016.    The Complainant approached the Opposite Party with a request to replace the newly installed faulty water meter.  The Opposite Party failed to consider the grievance of the Complainant.  Hence the Complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dated 24.08.2016 to the Opposite Party.  Thereafter the Opposite Party have allegedly subjected the water meter to lab test and has obtained report stating that the water meter is found to be perfect and in good working condition and advised the Complainant to get the water pipeline from the water meter to the residential house tested by licensed contractor, as per their letter No.7649/2016-17 dated 28.09.2016.  
4. As per the advice of the Opposite Party, the Complainant engaged the services of M/s. Byraveshwara Engineering Works, Government Licensed Contractors for Water and Sanitary Works, Basaveswaranagar, Bangalore.  The said office bearers of the said contractors visited the house of the Complainant, made thorough inspection of the water pipeline and found that there is no damage or leakage in the pipeline from the Sump Tank to the residence of the Complainant, but they found the fault with the water meter which is operated due to vacuum filling and running at high speed when the water is released.  The said Contractor has issued a Certificate to that effect on 18.10.2016.  
5. The Complainant has notified the report of the Licensed contractor and furnished the report/Certificate to the Opposite Party and requested to do the needful and replace the faulty vacuum filled water meter.  The Opposite Party have not considered the humble request of the Complainant and again issued demand notice/bill for the month of October 2016 claiming a sum of Rs.15,484/-by showing the water consumption of 59000 liters.  In pursuance of the water bills issued by the officials of the BWSSB are quite often visiting the house of the Complainant and they are demanding and compelling her to pay the demand bill amount failing which, they are posing threats to disconnect the water supply to the Complainant’s house. The Complainant is not liable to pay the illegal excess billing amount claimed by the Opposite Party. 
6. The Complainant’s has obtained water connection for domestic purpose and her family consisting of only 5 members.  There is no garden or any necessity of excess water consumption to the Complainant in her house. The Complainant is also not in the habit of inviting friends, relatives or conducting functions, ceremonies or throwing parties and also there is no any commercial activity in the house of the Complainant requiring excess consumption of water.  On the contrary the newly installed water meter is faulty and operated by vacuum filled meter, resulting in high speed running of meter when the water is released even though the Complainant is consuming only minimum required water for her domestic purpose.  The Opposite Party have failed to redress the grievance of the Complainant regarding excess billing and to replace the faulty water meter inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the Complainant.
7.  There is gross deficiency of service in installing a faulty vacuum filled water meter by the Opposite Party and thereby burdening the Complainant with excess billing of minimum water consumption.  As a result, the Complainant is subjected to mental torture, hardship, loss and inconvenience.  The Complainant is not liable to pay illegal and excess water billing amount claimed by the Opposite Party.   Hence this complaint.
8. In response to the notice, the Opposite Party put their appearance through their counsel, and filed their version.  In the version pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts as the devoid of merits.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The Complainant is the registered consumer of Water connection that the RR.No.SE 228048/T8/12 in the house situated at No.164, 16^th Main Road, IV ‘T’ Block Jayanagar, Bangalore-41, but it is RR No.SE 228048.    However when the premises was inspected by the officials of the Opposite Party, it was found that there are two houses inside the premises.  The Opposite Party is not aware of the strength of the family members.  According to the Ledger Report of the Complainant water connection till FEB.2016 average consumption of water recorded is 35,000 Liters per month and the premises getting bill ranging from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/- per month and the supply of water was satisfactory to the consumer.  There is no due from the consumer as on Feb.2016.
9.  In the Month of June 2016 the Opposite Party officials installed new water meter to the Complainant’s house.  The old water meter was installed long ago and it was in a poor condition.  Hence in the Month of May June 2016 the BWSSB changed the single Jet Meter to the Class-B Multi Jet Meter in entire SW-4 Sub-Division Jurisdiction.  The old Class water meter installed many years ago was unable to record the flow at low pressure and also if the Pipeline is less than half full.  But the recently fixed Multi Jet Water Meter which are of Class-B and are very sensitive and can record the consumption accurately even at low pressures.  It is true that the Complainant brought to the notice of the Jurisdictional BWSSB.  Officials regarding the alleged excess of water billing charges and requested to verify the same.  Based upon the said complaint received from the Complainant, the premises water meter and water pipe connection was inspected in the presence of the consumer by EESW, AEESW-4 and other field staff of Opposite Party on 20.07.2016.  It was observed that existing GI Water Pipe line which was laid at the time of construction of the building about 30 years ago and it is laid inside the ground for a length about 80 feet insides the premises.  Most of the pipe line is either buried inside the earth or concealed inside the building and its alignment inside the premises cannot be traced.  Also concreting is done over the pipe line.  This makes the identification of the leakage very difficult.  It is the bounded responsibility of the consumer to take care of the condition of the pipe line and prevent hidden leakages inside their premises after the water meter.  It is observed that the water meter was recording the consumption even after closing all the taps inside the premises and also inside the Sump. 
10. After further investigation the water meters even stopped recording the consumption immediately after closing the valve before the water meter.   From the above averments, it can be inferred that the water pipe line after the water meter upto the Sump and inside the premises which was very old and was leaking.  In this regard, the consumer was advised to change the water pipe line after the meter.  But instead of getting leakage water pipe line replaced the consumer was still suspecting the water meter.  However the newly installed water meter was not replaced in the Month of June 2016.  Inspite of it the consumer is insisting to fix the old aged water meter only.  The newly replaced water meter was got tested and found that the water meter was functioning satisfactorily.
11. It is true that the Complainant approached the Opposite Party with a request to replace the newly installed faulty water meter.  As the water meter was got tested and found functioning satisfactorily, the question of replacement of the newly installed meter will not arise and it does not amount to failure to consider the request of the Complainant.  Inspite of service of the legal notice dated 24.08.2016.  The consumer was intimated about the test report by AEE SW-4 vide letter No.1032 dated 29.08.2016 and also by the Chief Engineer(Maintenance) vide letter No.7640/2016-17 dated 28.09.2016 and the consumer was once again intimated to get the leaky water pipeline after the water meter replaced.  But the consumer did not listen to the advise of the AEE SW-4 or the Chief Engineer (M) of BWSSB and has not got the water pipeline rectified after the water meter.  The alleged engagement of service taken from M/s Byraveswara Engineering Works is of no use as the said Engineers have found fault only in the meter due to vaccum filling and running at high speed, but it is not correct.  On 25.08.2016 once again the premises was inspected by EE.SW and AEE SW-4 other field staff of the Opposite Party in the presence of the consumer and it was found that the consumer had not changed the water line buried inside the earth.      They are not responding to the advise of the Opposite Party staff to change the water pipe connection buried inside the earth.  In the report of M/s Byraveswara Engineering Works states that the water meter which was replaced as commercial reading and not domestic.  This is to certify that there is no separate water meter as commercial or domestic.  All the water meters are the same and only the tariffs vary depending upon the category of usage.  M/s Byraveswara Engineering Works does not have the technical experts or the required Laboratory set-up to certify the functioning of the water meter.  The required test results and other details for the statement that the water meter is running under vaccum are not forthcoming from the Plumbers reports. 
12. The Complainant has notified report of the licensed Contractor and furnished report to the Opposite Party with request to do needful.  On 29.08.2016 one more letter was sent to the consumer to get the water pipeline connection changed after the meter.  The consumption of Oct.2016 was 59,000/- liters and it shows variation of consumption of water from 72,000 liters to 59,000 liters.  The amount of Rs.15,484/- shown in the bill of Oct.2016 is not the bill for one month water consumption, but also includes dues of Rs.13,072/- from the month of April 2016 to Oct.2016.  Though the connection is taken and using for the purpose of domestic usage, the premises having 2 houses wherein the owner in one and the tenant in another are residing having more than 6 members.  According to the Bureau of Indian Standards, the water required for these 2 houses with about 10 occupants is approximately, 45,000/- liters per month and from this standard it is evident that there a definite leakage in the water pipe line inside the premises.  It can be further noted that there is no technical details based on which Byraveswara Engineering Works stating that the water meter is running under vaccum. 
13. The allegations made by the Complainant against the BWSSB officials alleging harassment is false, concocted and baseless. Inspite of the repeated advise, the Complainant has not got the leaky water pipeline replaced.  As could be seen from the test report the water meter is functioning satisfactorily and there is no need to change the water meter for the third time.   Under the above circumstances, the Complainant may kindly be advised to pay the arrears due to the Board and also to get the leaky water pipeline buried inside the earth rectified at the earliest.   However it may be noted that the Board will replace the new water meter if the consumer pays the fees prescribed by the Board towards the cost of a new class-B Multijet Water Meter.   Hence, the Complainant is vindictively filled for unlawful gain and prays to dismissal of the complaint.

14. The complainant, Smt.N.Sathyabhama has filed her affidavit by way of evidence and closed her side.   On behalf of the Opposite Party, the affidavit of one                         Sri.Rajeev J has been filed.  Heard the Arguments of both parties. 

15.    The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled ?

16.   Our findings on the above points are:-

                  POINT (1)                  :-   Negative

POINT (2)                  :-   As per the final order

REASONS

17.   POINT NO.1:-  It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant is the registered consumer of water connection vide R.R.No.S.E-228048/T8/12 in her house situated at No.164, 16^th Main Road, 4^th ‘T’ Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-41.  The Complainant has obtained the water connection for domestic purpose.  This fact is not been denied or disputed by the Opposite Party.  On the other hand, the Opposite Party in their version admitted this fact.   Further the Complainant in order to substantiate this fact, in her sworn testimony, she has reiterated the same and produced the Demand Notice issued by the Opposite Party dated 01.10.2016.  On perusal of this demand notice, it is clear that the Complainant had water connection to her house with RR.No.S.E-228048/T8/12, House No.164, 16^th Main Road, 4^th ‘T’ Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-41.  This evidence of the Complainant has not been denied or disputed by the Opposite Party.  To disbelieve the evidence Complainant, there is no contra evidence.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant had a domestic water connection to her house situated at No.164, 16^th Main Road, 4^th ‘T’ Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore vide R.R.No.S.E-228048/T8/12.

18.  It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant has an average usage of water for domestic purpose ranging from 15000 to 20000 liters per month and she was getting water bills ranging from Rs.300/- to a maximum limit of Rs.600/- per month.  The Complainant was regular and prompt in payment of the water charges as per the bills to the Opposite Party.  In the Month of June 2016 the officials of the Opposite Party installed a new water meter to the water connection in the Complainant’s house.  Thereafter the Complainant was shocked to receive water bill for the month of June 2016 for a sum of Rs.4809/- and the meter reading shown water consumption of 73000 liters.  Immediately the Complainant brought to notice of the Jurisdictional BWSSB officials regarding the excess of water billing charges and requested to verify and inspect the newly installed water meter.  The officials of the BWSSB were reluctant to consider the humble request and grievance of the Complainant.  Hence the Complainant was constrained to place the matter before the Water Adalat.  The Water Adalat, after considering the grievance of the Complainant and looking into the documentary evidence and materials placed by her, was pleased to waive off the bill amount claimed for the month of June-2016.   The Opposite Party in their version it clearly admitting that according to the Ledger Report of the Complainant water connection till FEB.2016 average consumption of water recorded is 35,000 Liters per month and the premises getting bill ranging from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/- per month and the supply of water was satisfactory to the consumer.  There is no due from the consumer as on Feb.2016 and also further admitted that in the Month of June 2016 the Opposite Party officials installed new water meter to the Complainant’s house.  The old water meter was installed long ago and it was in a poor condition.  Hence in the Month of May, June 2016 the BWSSB changed the single Jet Meter to the Class-B Multi Jet Meter in entire SW-4 Sub-Division Jurisdiction and also true that the Complainant brought to the notice of the Jurisdictional BWSSB.  The Opposite Party Officials regarding the alleged excess of water billing charges and requested to verify the same.  Based upon the said complaint received from the Complainant, the premises water meter and water pipe connection was inspected in the presence of the consumer by EESW, AEESW-4 and other field staff of Opposite Party on 20.07.2016.  It was observed that existing GI Water Pipe line which was laid at the time of construction of the building about 30 years ago and it is laid inside the ground for a length about 80 feet insides the premises.  Most of the pipe line is either buried inside the earth or concealed inside the building and its alignment inside the premises cannot be traced.  Also concreting is done over the pipe line.  This makes the identification of the leakage very difficult.  It is the bounded responsibility of the consumer to take care of the condition of the pipe line and prevent hidden leakages inside their premises after the water meter.  It is observed that the water meter was recording the consumption even after closing all the taps inside the premises and also inside the Sump.  So even according to the defence of the Opposite Party, they clearly admitting that till Feb.2016 minimum consumption of water connection of the Complainant’s house is recorded only 35,000 Liters and average bill is from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/- per month.  Further to substantiate this fact, the Complainant in her sworn testimony, she has reiterated the same and also produced the Bills which clearly goes to show that the average consumption is only about 20,000 to 35,000 liters per month and the bill amount is about Rs.500/- per month.  This evidence of the Complainant also not challenged by the Opposite Party, thereby it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant has an average usage of water for domestic purpose ranging from 15000 to 20000 liters per month and the bill amount is about 500 to 700. 

19. As admitted by the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party had installed a new water meter to the water connection of the Complainant’s house in the Month of June 2016, after installing a new water meter to the water connection of the Complainant’s house, the consumption of the water shown as about 9000 litre per month and water charges of Rs.1928/-, but not shown as water consumption of 73000 liters per month, thereby the Complainant failed to establish that after installing the new water meter to her house the consumption of the water is 73000 liters per month.  Nodoubt, the Complainant filed a complaint about excessive bill and consumption of the water, after installing a new water meter to the water connection of the Complainant’s house by the Opposite Party officials and also MLA and Ministers after receiving the Complaint, the Opposite Party’s Official inspected the water meter and noticed that the new water meter installed to the house of the Complainant have not any fault.  This is also submitted that the letter addressed by the AEESW-4 dated 10.08.2016 along with Report Meter Accuracy Test of Consumer Water Meter dated 07.08.2016, thereby even from the evidence produced by the Complainant herself, it is clear that the new water meter installed to the water connection of the Complainant’s house is functioning properly and not faulty.  On the other hand, the Complainant in support of her case produced the Certificate of Inspection Report issued by the Byraveshwara Engineering Works dated 18.10.2016. By looking into this document, nodoubt Byraveshwara Engineering Works, after inspection of the water line connection of the building the sump/Septic Tank ball valve and its ailments and connection of the domestic main line from the sump.  There was no leakage and certified that the defect found in the water meter which is vaccum filled operation and runs at a high speed when water is released. To substantiate this fact, the Complainant had not examined the concerned Engineer issued the Certificate. Furthermore, there is no authenticated evidence to believe that the water meter which is vaccum filled operation and runs at a high speed when water is released.  On the other hand, this fact is falsifies, as the evidence placed by the Complainant’s herself i.e., Meter Accuracy Test of Consumer Water Meter dated 07.08.2016.  Further this fact is also very clear, as looking into the evidence placed by the Opposite Party in support of their defence i.e., meter water report from May-2016 to December 2016 which clearly goes to show that the water charges is about Rs.1,928/- to Rs.2,198/-.  Therefore, it is not proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the new water meter installed by the Opposite Party in the Month of June-2016 is faulty meter and as a result of installed faulty meter the water consumption and water bill is more as compelled to previous one.  Even this fact is also falsified from the evidence placed by the Complainant herself i.e., demand notice issued by the Opposite Party dated 21.06.2016 clearly goes to show that the water consumption is only about 9000 liters and water charges is Rs.1928/- but not Rs.4809/-.  Nodoubt the total bill is Rs.4809/- which includes the water charges of Rs.1928/- and the meter charges and other miscellaneous charges and arrears, thereby they issued bill of Rs.4,809/-, but not for the water consumption. 

20. It is further case of the Complainant that the Complainant has notified the report of the licensed contractor and furnished the Report/Certificate to the Opposite Party and requested to do the needful and replace the faulty vacuum filled water meter.  The Opposite Party have not considered the request of the Complainant and again issued demand notice/bill for the month of October 2016 claiming a sum of Rs.15,484/-by showing the water consumption of 59000 liters.  To substantiate this fact, the Complainant in her sworn testimony, she has reiterated the same and produced the Certificate of Inspection Report issued by Byraveshwara Engineering Works.  As stated earlier, nodoubt the Byraveshwara Engineering Works submitted a report that the water meter which is operated due to vacuum filling and running at high speed when the water is released.  Except saying this fact is not supported by any other evidence.  On the other hand, as the evidence produced by the Opposite Party i.e., Meter Accuracy Test of Consumer Water Meter clearly goes to show that the water meter is not filled with vacuum and running at high speed when the water is released and further the Complainant produced the Demand Notice issued by the Opposite Party dated 06.10.2016 demanding for payment of Rs.15,484/-, but this amount is not for the water charges of October month.  On the other hand, as looking into this demand notice, it is clear that the water charges for that month is only Rs.1,298/- including arrears of Rs.13,072/-, interest on arrears, meter charges and other charges totally claiming Rs.15,484/-.  Further the Complainant has not placed any evidence in support of her case that she is regular in payment of the water charges.  On the other hand, as the defence taken by the Opposite Party in their version the amount of Rs.15,484/- showing the bill of October 2016 is not the bill for one month water consumption but also includes due of Rs.13,072/- from the Month of April 2016 to October 2016.  It is on the burden of the Complainant to establish that she has paid all the water bill from April 2016 to September 2016 but in support of her case she has not produced any evidence i.e., by producing receipts for payment of the said water charges.  On the other hand, as looking into the demand notice issued by the Opposite Party, it is crystal clear that the Complainant is in due of Rs.13,072/-, thereby in the Month of October 2016 the total amount will be Rs.15,484/- and other charges for that Month.  Therefore, it is also falsifies the contention of the Complainant.  On the other hand, after the requested by the Complainant, the Opposite Party officials visited the premises of the Complainant and inspected the water connection given to her premises and noticed that there was no defect with newly installed the water meter.  Hence, the Complainant failed to prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.  Hence, this point is held in Negative.

21. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, dt.7^th day of November 2018).

MEMBER                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Smt.N.Sathyabhama, who being the Complainant has filed her affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Bill and Receipts prior to May 2016.
2. Bill for the month of June 2016.
3. Bill for the month of October 2016.
4. Representation dated 18.07.2016.
5. Representation dated 17.08.2016.
6. Legal Notice dated 24.08.2016.
7. Reply dated 29.08.2016 by BWSSB.
8. Reply dated 28.09.2016 by BWSSB.
9. Bill for the month of October 2016.
10. Certificate dated 18.10.2016 by Byraveswara Engineering Works.

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

1. Sri.Rajeev J, Assistat Executive Engineer of the Opposite Party by way of affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

1. Copy of letter dated 10.08.2016.
2. Copy of Meter Accuracy Test of Consumer Water Meter.
3. Copy of letter dated 28.09.2016.
4. Copy of the Ledger Extract.

MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT