BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 23^rd DAY OF MAY 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVKUMAR, MEMBER

Complainant filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OP to set aside the inflated bill dated 02.09.2020 for Rs.32,22,722/- and consequent bills, to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- and cost of proceedings of Rs.25,000/-, such other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

This case is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 that complainant is a consumer, having water connection under RR No.C151360/AG 235 type non domestic under ID No.16382 from OP. Complainant submitted that since from obtaining water connection as per the usage of office, OP used to rise bill as per consumption made and people were paid the average bill for use of water is approximately between Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/-. Complainant further stated that office of OP issued a bill dated 02.09.2020 for the use of water in the month of August 2020 for Rs.32,22,722/-, it was utter surprise to the complainant. On receipt of the bill, complainant represented the office of OP, narrated facts and requested to re-consider and re-issue the bill based on average monthly consumption. After receipt the inflated bill to office,  complainant represented by departmental civil wing of BSNL inspected the spot and verified that underground sump and overhead tanks found no such leakage as observed that the old CT supply line from meter to controlling wall near the sump may be replaced for preventing leakage in future. The water meter may be destroyed or replaced, but report of Sub-divisional Engineer DIII addressed to division/II is produced. Complainant stated in its complaint that there is no chance of overflow of underground tank as a pump operator cum electrician will always be present in the campus on the safety basis. 

3. Complainant further stated that during the period from March 2020, since there was Covid-19 as per the covid guideline 50% of staff were used to work and remaining performed their duties from home during April to July/August 2020. During that period the consumption of water was drastically reduced and the question of rising such huge bill doesn’t arise for consideration. It is further stated that all of a sudden office of OP again issued the inflated bill for Rs.4,86,720/- amount. To avoid the unpleasant scene, complainant paid the said bill amount in time. During the pendency of inflated bills, office of complainant and office of OP corresponded between each other. Office of OP mercilessly disconnected the water amount on 22.09.2020 on the request, same was restored on 08.10.2020.

4. Later office of OP permanently disconnected the water connection on 11.03.2021. Subsequently meter was taken away and put the office of complainant in miserable condition which cannot be measured in terms of money. The very act of OP of issuance of inflated bill is deficiency of services and unfair trade practice. Complainant alleges that OP without giving reconnection apparently issued letter of information without modifying the bill informing meter was intact and bill rise is in guards and asked to pay the amount of Rs.43,83,480/- , failure in which order of lieu on interest 20% per annum will be imposed. Complainant has produced to rise the bill by adding interest over interest and claiming for total sum of Rs.46,15,074/- through bill dated 02.08.2022. Complainant further submitted that it paid miscellaneous charges claimed towards water/bore well/meter/sanitary charges. Even after several correspondence to office of OP, failed to re-issue the bill or to consider the demand, it clearly exhibits the deficiency of services on the part of OP. Hence complainant approached this commission seeking direction to OP to set aside the inflated bill, bill dated 02.09.2020 for Rs.32,22,722/- and consequent bills, to pay damages of Rs.50,000/-, cost of proceedings of Rs.25,000/- and such other reliefs.

5. After issuing notice, OP made representation through its counsel denied the allegation made by complainant, OP contended that complainant is default in payment of bill.  Hence bill amount accumulated with interest as per the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1964(Herein after BWSS Act, 1964). As on October 2020, the outstanding amount is Rs.47,40,293/-. OP also contended that the complainant premises for water supply and sanitary connection with RR No.C151360/ AG 235. The demand for water and sanitary use charged under non domestic rates. It also submits that OP did not issued any inflated bill or wrong bill as alleged by the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of OP. Inturn OP contends that there is deficiency by  complainant in non-payment though it is the duty of complainant and OP disconnected the water connection as per law on April 2022.

6. After filing of version, the case is set down to adduce affidavit evidence of both parties. Accordingly one Ramesh. B, AGM, BSNL has filed affidavit on behalf of complainant by way of examination in-chief, the same is taken as PW-1. In support of oral evidence, complainant filed 31 documents, which are marked as Ex.P1 to P31. On the other hand, one Channappaji. S.C, who is working as Assistant Executive Engineer, BWSSB, has filed affidavit evidence on behalf of OP who is RW-1. In support of his evidence, filed 1 documents which is marked as Ex.R1. Both the parties filed written arguments, OP filed with citations. Heard both parties, we perused the materials on record.

7. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether the complainant proves that the alleged deficiency of services on the part of OP?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to get relief as sought in the prayer?

iii) What order?

8. Our findings on the afore said points are as follows:-

 i) Point No.1:- In the negative

ii) Point No.2:- In the negative

iii) Point No.3:- As per the final order

REASONS

9. Point No.1:- By going through the pleadings of complainant and objections filed by OP, the complainant availed services of OP by taking water connection under RR No: C-151360/AG-235 type non-domestic under IP No: 16382 and the average bill for use of water by the complainant is approximately between Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/- which is undisputed. On utter shock when the OP has issued bill dated 02.09.2020 for the usage of water in the month of August 2020 for Rs.32,22,722/- is disputed by complainant and filed this complaint. In connection to that complainant approached OP requesting him to reissue corrected bill. As complainant stated in his complaint, after the receipt of inflated bill, the office of complainant represented by departmental Civil Wing BSNL inspected the spot and verified that underground sump and over head tanks, found no leakage and it also observed that old CI pipeline from the meter to the controlling valve near sump may be replaced for preventing leakage in future. Further they observed that water meter may be tested or replaced. The said report submitted by subdivision engineer BSNL Civil Wing dated 06.10.2020, which is at Ex.P.4/Ex.P.13 By these documents and the complainant itself stated in the complaint referring the very document admitted that the sump and over head tank has no leakage as observed by technical person. When there is no leakage in the sump and over head tank and also water meter is functioning well, complainant has no issue with technicality. The only contention of complainant is that during the period from March 2020, since there was Covid-19, as per Covid-19 guidelines, 50% of staff were only used to work and remaining staff performed their duty from their home during the April to August 2020. During that period, the consumption of water supposed to be reduced, and the question of such huge bill itself does not arise. Complainant further stated that, again the office of OP issued a bill for Rs.4,86,720/-, in pursuant to the inflated bill dated 02.09.2020 in question. The office of complainant has corresponded with OP with regard to the pendency of inflated bill. After perusal of documents produced by complainant in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.1(g)/Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 reveals that office of complainant used water for average billing of RS.1,50,000/- as stated in the pleadings.

The details as per Ex.P.1, Ex.P.1(a)to Ex.P.1(g)/Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8:-

The crux of the matter in present case is:

a) Whether the bill issued on 02.09.2020 is correct one?

b) Whether OP rightly disconnected the water supply at the premises of office of complainant?

10. Here the question arised with disputed bill dated 02.09.2020 as alleged by complainant, since there was lockdown due to the Covid-19 as per guidelines, 50% of staff were working offline and remaining staff performed their duties from home. As complainant alleged the water consumption is supposed to be reduced with lesser number of employees working in the office, they surprised with the bill dated amount till August 2020, the bill issued on 02.09.2020 is exorbitantly increased to 32,22,722. Ex.P.2/P.10 is a disputed bill discloses that the previous reading mentioned in the very document as 82,24,000., the present reading on the date of issuing bill is 80702000. Apart from that the very documents discloses water charges of Rs.30,82,091/-, meter charges of Rs.1,250/- and the sanitary charges of Rs.1,28,461/- on 02.09.2020 the arrears of Rs.32,61,802/- is pending altogether it comes to Rs.32,22,722/- which is disputed by complainant.

11. General Manager of complainants office corresponded to the OP on 28.11.2020 brought to the notice with regard to the amount of bill which is very high as compared to the previous 18 month’s average bill amount, he also stated in his letter with regard to reduction of employees during the said period and the pump operator of the office of complainant usually opens the control valve to fill a underground tank and simultaneously pumps water to over head tanks every day morning for 2 hours and switch off motor. Once over head tanks are full and closes control valve after underground tank is full. There is no chance of overflow of underground tank as pump operator cum electrician will always be present in the campus in shifts. Hence he requested OP to consider the above observation and reissue the bill based on average monthly consumptions which is at Ex.P.3/P.12. Such being the case, complainant must look into the way how the water has been used.

12. In the very letter, complainant itself mentioned the consumption of water since December 2018 till October 2020 in table manner in Ex.P3/Ex.P.12, it discloses the average consumption of water from 80,000 to 2,30,000 till April 2020. From may 2020 to July 2020, OP has not observed the meter reading of water usage of office of complainant, (i.e. the period of lockdown) based on the average consumption OP imposed average bill amount from May to July 2020. In the month of August, the consumption of water increased exorbitantly to 80702000 (Total 3,28,97,000 liters for 4 months i.e, from May to August 2020). It reveals that the consumption of water increased un-imaginary, obviously the amount increased. Accordingly complainant also alleges the bill amount of Rs.4,86,722/- on 02.10.2020 which is paid by office of complainant.

13. Considering the above bill and pendency of payment made by office of complainant discloses, complainant has not paid the bill of water usage regularly and the arrears accumulated, became huge bill amount. Therefore, in our considered view, OP has issued bill amount of 32,72,722 for the usage of 3,28,97,000 liters of water for 4 months from May to August 2020, seems to be right because as complainant agreed and admitted the meter was functioning well and the underground sump or the over head tanks are observed no leakages, Primafacie, complainant used that much of water during the bill of in question. More so, OP has issued bill with all the relevant information pertains to the very RR number, it discloses every month, complainant used 80,000 liters to 2,90,000 liters. It also exhibits the meter is functioning well and the meter reading of every month exhibits the same.

14. However, the question arises that the disconnection of water supply done legally? As complainant alleged that OP disconnected water connection on 22.09.2020 mercilessly, and restored on 08.10.2020 on the request of complainant. Again OP permanently disconnected water connection on 11.03.2021. Subsequently meter was taken away which caused miserable situations to day to day life of complainant. Is it deficiency of services on the part of OP? In this connection complainant issued letter to OP on 05.04.2021 requesting OP to respond to the earlier request letter dated 28.11.2020 which is at EX.P.3/P.12 and also mentioned that OP has disconnected water supply on 11.03.2021 suddenly. On enquiry it was told that re-connection will be given only after clearing the disputed amount which is at Ex.P.6/P.30. In pursuant to that office of OP issued letter to complainant on 19.04.2022 clarifying the issue arise with regard to the bill amount in the very letter OP mentioned that the consumption of water recorded as 44183000 during August 2020 is found to be correct, after re-inspecting the spot along with concerned AE, he also stated in the letter that the water meter was sent to meter testing lab which reports that meter accuracy is within permissible deviation and meter is found to be accurate. Accordingly meter was re-inserted at your premises on 29.10.2020. Hence OP told complainant to clear the arrears of Rs.43,83,486/- on April 2022 within the stipulated date to avoid 20% interest per annum on arrears amount. OP also stated as per BWSS Act 1964 vide section 53(1)(c) the water and sanitary connection will be disconnected at premises of complainant which is Ex.P.7/P.31. It is pertinent to note that OP stated in his version that, complainant is a defaulter in paying the parts of bill and the bill amount accumulated with interest as per the BWSS Act 1964. As on October 2022 the outstanding amount is Rs.47,40,293/-, OP rightly cut off water supply according to the BWSSB Act U/S 53(1)(c) Act.

15. By pursuing the documents produced by OP which is Ex.R.1 discloses the bifurcated billing monthly raised from  January 2019 to December 2020. Through the very documents, the complainant has paid with heavy amount payment, as mentioned in the receipts issued by OP and the closing balance also discloses the arrears accumulated from every month billing even the same has mentioned in letter dated 19.04.2022 addressed of office of complainant. At the same time OP instructed to pay the pending bill amount at the earliest in order to avoid the interest of 20% per annum on arrear amount, complainant is not paid even to avoid further interest on arrears.

16. Here we observed that the complainant has not taken proper precaution to avoid heavy usage and also not taken interest to settle the matter amicably between OP. At the same time OP has not called complainant for ‘water adalath’ to settle the pending bill between the parties. In our considered view complainant has keep prolonging the matter without paying the bill amount, even in part, is not fair. In turn that made them to pay heavily as per BWSS Act. Considering the above facts and reasons we observed the cut off water connection by OP in the premises of office of complainant is not wrong as per the rules U/S 53(1)(c).

17. At the time of argument OP has submitted citation referring in respect of the complainant in the present case has not Consumer and not entitled for compensation. In our view the complainant in this particular case has availed services of OP for the day to day requirement of water by taking water connection to run the office of complainant. Hence in our view complainant is a consumer as per Section 2(7)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act 2019. Considering all the above discussion we observed there is no deficiency of services on the part of OP as complainant alleged in his complaint. For the foregoing reasons, we answer Point No.1 in negative.

18. Point No.2:- As per Point No.1 when there is no deficiency of services in issuing inflated bill and also the pending bill has not paid in a stipulated period, the complainant is bound to pay the bill amount to OP for reconnection of water. Hence complainant is not entitled for any compensation or reduction in bill as prayed. It is pertinent to note that complainant is also a service provider in field of telecom, action/resolution for default it is best known to it, for such cases. Likewise OP is also a service provider, they have their own rules and regulations to maintain the system in systematic manner and also provide good services to the customers of water and sanitary services, they have to act accordingly. Hence in our considered view, OP has not caused any deficiency of service in disconnecting the water connection. Hence, complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed. For the foregoing reasons we answer Point No.2 in the negative.

19. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. Complaint filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 is hereby dismissed. No cost

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 23rd day of MAY, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party No.3– R.W.1;