cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of January 2013
Filed on : 11/05/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 2412011
Between
P. Muraleedharan, : Complainant
S/o. Late M. Gopalan, (party - in- person)
Muralee Centre,
Mattammel Junction,
Thevara P.O.,
Kochi-682 013.
And
1. Chief Engineer, : Opposite parties
Kerala Water Authority, (By Adv. Jeemon John,
Thiruvananthapuram. Standing counsel, M.D.V.
Complex, Opp.L.F. Hospital,
Angamaly)
2. Executive Engineer,
Water Works Sub Division,
Kerala Water Authority,
Ernakulam, Kochi-682 016.
3. Assistant Executive Engineer,
Water Works Sub Division,
Kerala Water Authority,
Ernakulam, Kochi-682 016.
4. Assistant Engineer,
Water Works Sub Division,
Kerala Water Authority,
Ernakulam, Kochi-682 016.
5. Antony, Meter Inspector,
Kerala Water Authority,
Ernakulam, Kochi-682 016.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is holding a water connection of the Kerala Water Authority. At the instance of the water authority the complainant replaced the water meter on 20-11-2008. On 17-03-2009 the complainant received a water charge bill for a period from 25-11-2008 to 16-03-2009 to the tune of Rs. 1,472/-. On 31-03-2009 the complainant caused a complaint to the 3rd opposite party against the said bill. As per the direction of the 3rd opposite party the 5th opposite party visited the premises of the complainant and he submitted a report stating that he could not examine the meter due to the obstruction caused by an almirah. However later he examined the meter and submitted a report. At that juncture the complainant requested the 3rd and 5th opposite parties to replace the meter, but there was no response. Thereafter the complainant closed the valve and stopped the usage of water. In spite of that the opposite parties have been issuing water charge bills to the complainant on the basis of the readings in the faulty meter.
The complainant received the following bills from the opposite parties.
Sl. No. | Date | Period of assessment | Amount in Rs. |
1 | 27-05-2009 | 17-03-2009 to 26-05-2009 | 2,138 |
2 | 31-10-2009 | 20-08-2009 to 31-10-2009 | 3,803 |
3 | 29-12-2009 | 31-10-2009 to 28-12-2009 | 4,469 |
4 | 23-02-2010 | 29-12-2009 to 22-02-2010 | 5,299 |
5 | 06-08-2010 | 29-04-2010 to 05-08-2010 | 8,937 |
6. | 29-10-2010 | 06-08-2010 to 28-10-2010 | 10,259 |
7 | 22-02-2011 | 29-10-2010to 21-02-2011 | 12,903 |
Though the complainant preferred written complaints against the above bills the opposite parties neither took action to replace the meter nor to disconnect the connection temporarily. Thus the complainant is before us seeking the following reliefs against the opposite parties.
i. to rectify or replace the water meter erected on 20-11-2008 and to provide potable water
ii. to get the impugned bills set aside
iii. to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service and dereliction of duty on the part of the opposite parties.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:
The complainant is a domestic category consumer of the opposite parties. When the water meter of the complainant was found defective the 3rd opposite party issued a notice to the complainant to replace the meter. Accordingly the water meter was replaced on 20-11-2008. On 15-12-2008 the meter reading was 9984. Since the complainant placed his almirah over the water meter they could not inspect the same properly. The replaced water meter as well became defunct with effect from March 2009. In the It is the duty of the complainant to take steps to get the defective meter replaced. If the complainant wants to disconnect the connection temporarily or permanently he has to submit an application along with required fees in which he failed. The complainant had remitted the water charges till October 2008. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is liable to pay the water charge arrears to the opposite parties.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exbts. A1 to A17 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the counsel for the opposite parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:
i. whether the complainant is entitled to get the water meter
replaced?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the impugned bills
set aside?
iii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay a
compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant?
5. Point No. i. At the instance of the complainant vide order dated 14-07-2011 in I.A. No. 392/2011 this Forum directed the 3rd opposite party to replace the defective water meter of the complainant. In furtherance of the above order an approved plumber of the opposite parties replaced the water meter and the opposite parties approved the same. So there is no point in discussing the matter further to the contra.
6. Point No. ii. At the outset on 20-11-2008 the water meter of the complainant had been replaced with a new one. Even according to the opposite parties the replaced meter as well became defunct. However the opposite parties time and again kept on issuing Exts. A1, A3, A5, A7, A9, A11, A13, A15 and A17 bills based on the water meter reading in the defaulted meter. The complainant has been raising a hue and cry against the above bills in black and white evidenced by Exts. A2, A4, A6, A8, A10, A12, A14and A16. The above bills relying on the readings on a defective water meter is unsustainable in law. By applying the maxim “res ipsa loquitur” in this case we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is not at all liable to pay the amounts as per the impugned bills as stated above. We set aside Ext. A1, A3, A5 A7, A9, A11, A13, A15 and A17 bills.
7. According to the complainant on receipt of Ext. A1 itself he stopped the usage of water and intimated the same to the complainant . The opposite parties maintain that the complainant should have submitted an application with required fees to get the water connection temporarily or permanently disconnected and the complainant has been using water from the connection. There is some force in the argument of the opposite parties especially the complainant has to comply with the formalities as per Regulation 9 of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulation 1991 either for temporarily or personal disconnection, in which the complainant failed. So the inevitable conclusion in the given set of facts of the case is that the complainant has been using potable water through his water connection.
8. Since admittedly water meter reading to quantify the water charges of the complainant is not available the only remedy open before this Forum is to direct the opposite parties to issue a fresh water charge bill on the basis of the readings in the fresh water meter replaced in furtherance of the order of this Forum in I.A. No. 392/2011 dated 14-07-2011 after taking 6 months average consumption. The opposite parties are at liberty to issue a fresh bill after taking 6 months average consumption and retrospectively issuing a bill for the whole disputed period that is from 20-11-2008 to the date of replacement of the present water meter.
9. Point No. iii. While issuing Ext. A1 itself the opposite parties were aware of the status of the water meter of the complainant. The complainant submitted Ext. A2 complaint against Ext. A1. The opposite parties failed not only in considering the grievances of the complainant in Exts. A2, A4, A6, A8, A10, A12, A14and A16 but also issued Exts. A3, A5 A7, A9, A11, A13, A15 and A17. The above conduct lackadaisical attitude and laches on the part of the opposite parties can not be countenanced which sustains an unexplainable situation which neither discharges them from their responsibility nor absolves the grievances of the complainant. As a last resort the complainant had only to approach this Forum to get his grievances redressed. The opposite parties couldhave attended to the genuine complaint of the complainant whereby putting the complainant to unnecessary difficulties and inconveniences which has to be compensated. We fix the compensation at Rs. 3,000/-. The complainant is not liable to pay any interest for the amount, so calculated as per the above direction since the delay has been caused not due to his fault.
10. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
i. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally issue a fresh
water charge arrear bill taking the average consumption for 6
months from the newly erected water meter as per the
direction of this Forum for the period from 20-11-2008 to the
date of replacement of the present meter without levying any
interest.
ii. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs.
3,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the
reasons stated above.
iii.It is made clear that the opposite parties are at liberty to
adjust the compensation amount with the bill that is issued.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of January 2013
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of consumer bill
A2 : Copy of letter dt. M10-06-2009
A3 : Copy of consumer bill
dt. 27/05/2009
A4 : Copy of letter dt. 17-06-2009
A5 : Copy of consumer bill
dt. 11/10/2009
A6 : Copy of letter dt. 25-11-2009
A7 : Copy of consumer bill
dt. 29/12/2009
A8 : Copy of letter dt. 30-12-2009
A9 : Copy of consumer bill
dt. 23-02-2010
A10 : Copy of letter dt.16-03-2010
A11 : Copy of consumer bill
dt. 06-08-2010
A12 : Copy of consumer bill
dt. 17-08-2010
A13 : Copy of consumer bill
dt.29-10-2010
A14 : Copy of letter dt. 09-11-2010
A15 : Copy of consumer bill
dt. 22/02/2011
A16 : Copy of letter dt. 11-03-2011
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
