O R D E R

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath, President.

Case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner as a beneficiary is a consumer of the opposite party Water Authority with vide Consumer No. IV/114 of Kottayam Municipality. According to the petitioner the opposite party assured the petitioner that they will supply drinking water to the petitioner. Petitioner states that in addition to the water charges . Opposite party is collecting Rs. 2/- as meter inspection charges for each month for taking the meter reading. It was assured by the opposite party that once in every six months meter reading will be taken and the actual quantity of water consumed and the corresponding amount will be intimated to the petitioner. According to the petitioner from 1996 on wards there was only two

-2-

persons residing in the house of the petitioner. The petitioner was remitting water charges in advance. On 23..7..2003 the petitioner was directed to remit Rs. 1132/- as arrears up to 6/2003. The average water consumption of the petitioner was 13 units and the monthly water charge is fixed as Rs. 31/-. The petitioner remitted all arrears up to 6/2003 . The water charges and inspection charges up to 2/2006 was remitted by the petitioner in advance to the office of the opposite party. Petitioner states that on 30..11..2005 a bill was served to the petitioner directing him to remit arrears of the water charges and meter inspection charges When the petitioner approached the office of the opposite party he was informed that there was arrears of Rs. 15,448/- when he informed that the said amount was not legitimately payable by him the opposite party served a statement for an amount of Rs. 46, 435/-as arrears. In the said statement average per month consumption recorded was 133.5 KL and the monthly water charges and meter inspection charge shown as Rs.796/-. It was informed to the petitioner by the opposite party that he had to remit the amount with interest from 11/2000. According to the petitioner fixing of Rs. 796/- as water charges and meter inspection charges is highly excessive and is without any basis. On 17..12..2005 the petitioner filed a complaint to the opposite party to fix the water charges of the petitioner. But the opposite party has not redressed the grievances of the petitioner

-3-

and fixed the water charge of the petitioner. On 19..1..2007 a bill was served to the petitioner by the opposite party claiming Rs. 56,848/- as arrears from 30..9..2002 to 12/2006. The opposite party, after submitting the complaint by the petitioner, on 17..12..2005, issued a memo to the petitioner stating that his water meter is defective so it has to be repaired. The petitioner on 14..1..2006 repaired the water meter. The opposite party again on 3..6..2006 informed the petitioner that water meter is defective. The petitioner repaired and tested the water meter and installed it in his premises. According to the petitioner even after installing the repaired meter the opposite party has not taken any steps to fix the monthly water charges on the basis of actual quantity consumed. So, the petitioner prays for cancellation of the bill dated 19..1..2007. The petitioner also seeks direction of the Forum to the opposite party to fix the monthly charges of the petitioner on the basis of the actual quantity of water consumed by him he also claims cost of the proceedings.

The opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party they are collecting water charges according to the existing rules and regulations of KWA and the meter reading is taken according to the prevailing norms of the opposite party. The opposite party contented that the petitioner had remitted only

-4-

water charges as per provisional invoice card in advance. Based on the meter reading subsequent additional bill was issued to the petitioner on the basis of his actual consumption. The bill issued was for the average consumption of water for previous months and the bill amount is correct. According to the opposite party the petitioner has a huge lawn and he is regularly using water for the same. The opposite party contented that on inspection by the opposite party it is found that water meter of the petitioner is fault and hence memo was issued to the petitioner. The meter was replaced on 13..1..2006. After a few months again the meter became faulty and it was replaced on 20..6..2006. Opposite party contented that for fixing monthly water charges the consumer can

file an appeal before the Executive Engineer and the Executive Engineer is empowered to asses the water charges by observing 3 months water consumption of the consumer with retrospective effect, on remittance of 50% of water charges in advance. The opposite party contented that there is no deficiency of service on their part. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

Points for determinations are:

i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the

opposite party?

ii) Reliefs and costs.

-5-

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties

Ext. A1 to A16 documents on the side of the petitioner.

Point No. 1

As per regulation 13 (b) of Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) regulation 1991. The authority may fix the monthly water charges of a consumer based on his average consumption of water for any previous six months in case of existing connection . Regulation also states that charges so fixed shall be revised if consumption of water ,at the premises of the consumer ,is found to have increased or decreased based on the observation of the meter readings taken in subsequent six months to the last period. The petitioner produced the consumer computer print of the ledger and said documents is marked as Ext. A8. From Ext. A8 it can be

seen that the meter reading is taken on 14..11..2000, 30..8..2001 and 30..9..2002. The average consumption was calculated by taking the average meter reading in between 30..8..2001 and 30..9..2002. We are of the opinion that said calculation of average consumption is not proper. As per regulation 13 (b) the authority ought to have taken the meter reading for the previous six months and fix monthly charges for the existing connection. Here the authority had fixed monthly charges without complying regulation 13 (b). Even after the lapse and latches on the part of the opposite party, in taking meter reading and fixing charges, From Ext. A8 it

-6-

can be seen that even fine was imposed against the petitioner in his monthly water charges. Section 13 (b) says that the authority may fix monthly water charges of consumer based on the average consumption of water for any previous six months in case of existing water connection.As per section 2 (g) of Consumer Protection Act deficiency is defined as any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being the force. Here there is fault, imperfection and short coming in the manner of performance to be maintained by the law for the time being in force on the part of the opposite party. Issuing additional bill after years according to the whims and willfulness of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service. From Ext. A8 it can be seen that the additional bill was issued for recovery amount beyond 3 years. The Hon'ble National Commission in Hariyana Vidyuth Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Aggarwal Ice Factory, reported in 2007 CTJ 927 had stated that recovery beyond 3 years was time barred. So, we are of the opinion that issuance of bill after 3 years based on the whims and willfulness of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is to be allowed and petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. In the result the

-7-

opposite parties claim for additional bill for an amount of Rs. 46,445/-is found unsustainable. So the said bill is quashed. The opposite party is ordered to issue revised bill to the petitioner as per regulation 13 of water supply regulation 1991 without levying penal charges and the opposite party is not allowed to claim bills for recovering amounts for a period up to which limitation of 3 years will apply. Opposite party is ordered to fix monthly water charges of the petitioner as per regulation 13 (b) of water supply regulation, for the petitioners future consumption. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered. The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of this order.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26^th .day of November, 2008.