(As per A.A.Jain, Hon’ble Member)
1. In this case cause of action , nature of complaints, and parties are substantially same, so all these complaints are disposed off by common judgement.
2. Complainant’s case in short is that they have water supply connections of opposite party at their shop and two residential premises bearing No.4135, 3058 and 1576 respectively. They are using water for drinking purpose only, because there is a connection in their hardware shop and other two connections are at their residence and there is a bore-well also for supply of water for non drinking purpose.
3. Complainants’ allegation is that opposite party is not taking the reading of meter and used to send the water bill of huge amount and on lumpsum basis. And the complainant many times complained regarding the same and also requested to change the meter but the O.P. on every time used to avoid on one pretext or the other. Complainant No. 1 & 2 paid Rs.6000/- against the pending bill but O.P. has not given details about arrears, They have also given notice through advocate Shri K.B. Mardikar on 18.07.2005 to O.P. complaining about lumpsum huge amount of bill and about stopped meter which is not showing any reading. But O.P. failed to change the meter and also failed to give details of the bill.
4. Complainants prayed to direct O.P. for changing meter and issue bill on average basis as per previous consumption without any interest or penalty and cost of the case with compensation for mental and physical harassment amounting to Rs.2000/- each.
5. In response to notice u/s 13 of C.P.Act 1986 O.P. appeared on dated 19.10.2006 and sought time for filing reply. Hence time was granted and case was posted for reply on 02-11-2006 , 10-11-2006 and 14-11-2006 respectively but O.P. always filed application for time to file hisreply. On 14-11-2006 this forum allowed his application subject to cost of Rs.200/- each which was to be deposited in C.L.A.A.Than on next dates i.e. 21-11-06, 28-11-2006, 05-12-2006, 12-12-2006 O.P. did not appear before this forum and neither paid the cost nor file their reply. On dt. 19-12-2006 O.P. appeared and paid cost of Rs.200/- each in all 3 complaints but did not file reply. O.P. has filed notification No.MJP/FA-1/Cost/257/55/2006 dated 25-04-2006 and also filed notification of bye-laws No.1089/CR/8/89/4028 in exercise of the power u/s 67 of the Maharashtra Water Supply and sewerage Board Act, 1976. This bye-laws come into force on 01-01-1990 . O.P. also submitted Pursis with short argument after paying cost Rs.200/- in each case.
6. On verifying all the record and pleadings of the complainants and gone through Govt. notification and bye-laws, only point arise for our consideration whether all complainants entitled for any relief as sough in prayer and our finding is ‘prayer partly allowed’ due to following reasons.
REASONS
7. Complainants have failed to state as to from which date they have not paid the bill, when they use the water of O.P. It is needless to mention here that the complainants’ are duty bound to to be well aware about the bills and their payment.
The bye-laws of O.P. at Sr.No.14 states that :
14) “ If the water bill is lost, it shall be the responsibility of the consumer to approach the engineer-in-charge for the collection of duplicate copy of water bill. The Board shall not extend the period for the payment of water charges on the ground of lost bill and the water bill shall be deemed to have been received within 3 days of the date mentioned on the bill.”
Sr.No.13(2) “In the case of any dispute where the consumer feels that the charges are more, he shall first make the payment of the bill under protest and than file a complaint to the Engineer in charge.”
8. If O.P fails to submit bill which may be monthly or bimonthly it is duty of complainants to collect the bill and make the payment thereof , If meter was stopped or faulty than also complaints have to pay minimum charges of water bill whether they were used water 2-3 buckets or more or not used water. So in our view complainants are entitled for payment of water bill as minimum charges as per the rate prevailing time to time.
9. Second issue of the complainant was delayed payment charges i.e. surcharge. As per bye-laws Sr.No.15 which states that :
“In the case of failure by the consumer to pay the dues of water charges, meter rent or any other charges under these bye-laws including delayed payment charges within 30 days of the date of receipt of the bill by the consumer, he is liable to pay delayed payment charges at 1.5% per month of such dues, subject to a minimum of Rs.1/-.
In case in hand O.P. also has not recovered the amount . O.P. neglected recovery of water dues, only they compounding water bill, delayed payment, meter rent etc. for next bill to save the limitation period for recovery.
6 O.P. filed Pursis expressing their readiness to change the meter on the cost of consumer and also to issue the bills on average basis as per consumption of meter for entire previous period. In our opinion the aforesaid offer of the O.P. as per pursis is not practicable to solve the dispute for ever. Both paties are equally negligent giving rise to this dispute, so both have to suffer for the same. So we proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
i) Complaints are partly allowed.
ii) The O.P. is directed to issue corrected bill to the complainants by charging at minimum charges and excluding 50% of the accumulated delayed payment charges, within one month from the date of this order.
iii) The O.P. is further directed to change the meter if so required, at the cost of the complainants without any unreasonable delay and issue regular bills.
iv) Under the circumstances, no order as to costs.
