CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member CC No. 95/2009 Tuesday, the 26thth day of October , 2010 Petitioner : Thomas, George, Panangattathu House, Cheeranchira P.O Changanacherry (By Adv. Babu P. Thomas) Vs. Opposite party : 1) The Exe. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvalla. 2) The Asst. Exe. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Changanacherry. O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner is filed on 21..3..2009, is as follows. Petitioner is a domestic consumer of the opposite party Water Authority, with vide consumer No. 1129/VALLY, under Changanacherry sub division. According to the petitioner water charges were fixed by the opposite party for the petitioner’s consumption of water from 24..11..93 is Rs. 17/-. Petitioner remitted the amount up to December 2005. From 2006 on words opposite party is not willing to receive the water charges and directed the petitioner to contact Cherukkuarannu water authority office. Petitioner contacted the said office and they inform the petitioner that he is liable to pay additional water charges from 2..4..2003 to 2008. Petitioner filed an application to the Asst. Engineer for the detailed bill. Opposite party issued the bill asking the petitioner to remit Rs. 6556/- from 2/04 to 1/07. On 12..1..2009 petitioner filed a complaint to the opposite -2- party for a revised bill. Opposite party instead of issuing revised bill issued another bill for Rs. 7802/-. According to the petitioner he is not liable for remitting the bill amount. Act of the opposite party in issuing additional bill is without any basis and is a clear deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction to cancel the bill Dtd: 30..1..2009. Petitioner seeks direction of opposite party to permit the petitioner to remove the faulty meter and fixation of the monthly charge. Petitioner claims cost of the proceedings. Opposite party filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party petitioner remitted meter charges up to December 2005 on minimum rate. Petitioner paid water charges only up to 12/2006 . A new meter was fitted on 26..4..2003 and additional bill from 7/03 to 13/06 for Rs. 6556/- was issued to the petitioner based on the meter reading. Later bill for Rs. 7802/- was issued by the opposite party by calculating the water charges from 1/07 to 8/08. According to the petitioner there is no deficiency in service on their part in issuing the disputed bill. Opposite party prays 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) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party. -3- Point No. 1 Petitioner challenges the disputed bill for an amount of Rs. 7802/-. Opposite party in their version contented that the amount fixed for 02/04 is Rs. 189/PM 03/04 is Rs. 358/PM 09/05 is Rs. 107/PM 04/06 is Rs. 82/PM 01/07 is Rs. 28/PM 08/07 M/F 05/08 M/F Additional Water charges 07/03 to 02/04 = (189-25) x 8 = 1312 03/04 to 03/05 = (358-25) x 3 = 4329 04/05 to 09/05 = (107-25) x 6 = 492 10/05 to 04/06 = (82-25) x 7 = 399 05/06 to 12/06 = (28-25) x 8 = 24 -------------------- Total 6556 Water Charges from 1/07 to 8/08 = 28 x 20 = 560 9/08 to 11/08 = 52 x 3 = 156 (Rate revised from 9/08 onwards as per Govt. Order) fine for 1/07 to 11/08 5 x 23 = 115 Surcharge for faulty meter 10/07 to 8/08 = 259 10/07 = 7 11/07 = 14 12/07 = 14 1/08 to 8/08 (28x8) = 224 ------------------- 259 ============ -4- 9/08 to 11/08 = 52 x 3 = 156 -------------------- 415 Total 246 Total Bill = 6556 +1246 = 7802 =============== According to the opposite party meter of the petitioner was faulty from 8/07. Petitioner filed a petition on 2..4..2007 to the opposite party requesting the opposite party to change the faulty meter. Said document is marked as EXt. A2. Opposite party as reply to Ext. A2 given a letter to the petitioner on 3..5..2007 said document is marked as /ext. A3. In Ext. A3 opposite party replied that the meter recorder has not submitted any report regarding the fact that meter was found faulty. In the version opposite party shown that from 8/07 to 5/08 the meter is shown as faulty. So, act of the opposite party in not changing the faulty meter and penalizing the petitioner with surcharge and issuing the petitioner additional bill by considering the high average consumption is not allowable. As per regulation 17 (b) of water supply regulation 1991 if the meter of the petitioner is out of order. On receipt of an application Asst. Exe. Engineer shall arrange to get the meter tested. Here without testing the meter opposite party given a reply to the consumer as Ext. A3 stating that meter reader never reported with regard to the faulty meter. Later they issued additional bill for the year 2007/08 as per regulation 17 (d) of water supply regulation 1991. Further more opposite party as per regulation 13 has a bounden duty to fix the monthly rate of water charge of a consumer based on average consumption of water for any previous six months. As per regulation 13 (c) the authority also introduced a slab system for collection of water charges. The slab so fixed shall be revised based on the -5- consumption of water at the premises of the consumer is found to have increased or decreased as the case may be. In our view opposite party has not followed regulation 13 (b) and (c) of water supply regulation 1991. The act of the opposite party without following the rules and regulations issuing additional bill in our view, is a clear deficiency in service. Point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1 petition is allowed. in the result , the following order is passed: i) Bill Dtd: 30..1..2009 for Rs. 7802/- is cancelled. Opposite party is directed to issue a revised bill in accordance with law for the actual consumption of water consumed by the petitioner without any additional charge penalty or surcharge. ii) Opposite party is ordered to permit the petitioner to replace the faulty meter if the meter is so far not replaced, with a fault free meter in accordance with provision of law. iii) Opposite party is directed to fix the monthly charge of petitioner as per regulation 13 of the water supply regulation 1991. iv) Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for the loss and sufferings sustained to the petitioner v) Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Opposite party is directed to adjust the cost and compensation in the future revised bill. -6- The order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of October, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Document for the petitioner Ext. A1: Copy of the order. Ext. A2: Letter dtd: 2..4..2007 Ext. A3: Letter Dtd: 3..5..2007 Ext. A4: Copy of notice dtd: 27..2..2009 Ext. A5series Bills Documents for the opposite party: Ext. B1: Copy of the consumer personal ledger of Consumer No. 1129. By Order Senior Superintendent Despatched on / Received on amp/ 5 cs.
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
