SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

    Complainant filed this complaint  under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986  against opposite party for getting  an order directing the  opposite party to pay  excess amount of Rs.4500/- paid by complainant on 10/3/2017 and also  compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony caused to the complainant  due to deficiency in service on the part of OP.

    The brief facts of complainant’s case  are that the complainant has water  connection  in his house supplied by OP with a  meter fixed for showing the quantity of water charge.  The complainant has having a bore well also for domestic purpose.  Thereby the water connection of Kerala water authority is kept as standby arrangement.  So consumption of  always at a monthly unit of 27 and bills issued by the authority  bimonthly. It is the case of complainant that in the month of March 2017, a bill for Rs.5044 was issued by the office of the OP and the last date of depositing the amount was  5/4/2017.  The complainant deposited that amount on 10/3/2017 as per the direction of OP and assure that the meter will be  tested and changed and also assured that excess amount will be refunded to him if meter  found  defective so the complainant paid that amount.  After a test was made by the OP and found the  meter was defective.  On 20/4/2017 a new  water meter purchased and after certification it is replaced with old meter after that the unit found is only 51 for 2 months. Complainant further submitted that  he issued notices  dtd.21/4/17,5/6/17,16/8/17 respectively to the OP with the demand of returning the excess fees collected by the OP due to the reason of defective meter but the OP is evading  from repayment and there is  clear deficiency in service from the side of OP.  Hence this complaint.

    After receiving notice opposite party filed version denied the entire allegations of the complainant.  According to opposite party the bills of water is given as per rule 13(d) of  water supply Regulations Act  on the basis of average consumption of water.  Op contended that though complainant’s connection is for domestic purpose, his consumption of water is in high range than normal consumption as per the meter reading  ie 32k/L.  Further during the disputed period average consumption of water is 95.5KL per month and  hence issued Ext.A9 bill as per rule.  Hence  complainant is bound to remit Ext.A9 bill.  Opposite party denied the allegation of the complainant about  fault of meter etc and pleaded that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

   Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents.  He was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A14.  PW1 was not cross-examined  as opposite party and counsel absent.  Sufficient posting dates were given to OP for adducing their evidence.  But OP remained absent and neither cross examined PW1 and not adduced their evidence.  The learned counsel appearing for complainant placed oral submissions before us.

   We have perused the contentions of both sides, records available before us and oral submissions of learned counsel of complainant at the argument time.

   Here we can see that though opposite party denied the all allegations of complainant and contended that they issued Ext.A9 bill legally on the basis of average consumption made by complainant during the disputed period, they did not substantiate their contentions before us with cogent evidence.  On perusal of Exts.A1 to A14 documents, we can reveal that the allegation of complainant that the average water bill of complainant comes only Rs.548/- and the meter was faulty on the disputed period and reading shown was in excess than consumption.  As OP has not adduced their evidence and rebut the allegations of complain ant, we are forced to believe the case of complainant.  Hence as per complaint, chief affidavit  and documents brought before us,  there is deficiency in service and unfair  practice  on the part of opposite party and the complainant is entitled to get relief.  Complainant claimed Rupees one lakh as compensation  for the expenses incurred him for coming  to Kannur to visit the opposite party’s  office for several times for claiming the relief leaving his business at Chateesgad.  There is no evidence before us to show  that allegation of complainant.

   On considering the facts and circumstances of this case we  are finding that there is merit in this case and complaint is to be allowed.

    In the result, complaint is allowed in part.  Opposite party is directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.4500/- paid by complainant as per Ext.A9 bill.  Opposite is  further  directed to  pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony caused to complainant.  Opposite party shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which amount of Rs.4500/- carries interest @12% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization.  Complainant is at liberty to execute this order as per the Provisions envisaged in Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts

A1,A3,A5, A7,A9, A11,  -Demand notices dtd.7/7/16,6/9/16 ,7/11/16,10/1/17, 7/3/17,10/7/17

A2,A4,A6,A8,A10, A12- water bill dtd.10/8/2016,15/10/16,24/11/16,20/1/17,20/4/17 20/7/17

A13-letter dtd.5/6/17

A14-letter dtd.21/4/17

PW1- Kallen Sathish Kumar- complainant

Sd/                                                                            Sd/                                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                               MEMBER                                                        MEMBER

Ravi Susha                      Molykutty Mathew.                            Sajeesh K.P

eva         

                                                   /Forwarded by Order/

                                                    SENIOR  SUPERINTENDENT