BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 27/09/2011

Date of Order : 21/12/2013

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 514/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :-

The complainant is the Secretary of association of the owners of 'Pavillion Apartments' consisting of 13 apartments. The developer availed a domestic water connection from the opposite parties. The average consumption of water in the apartment building was 30/40 KL from June 2007 onwards. The opposite parties demanded excess amount vide bill dated 05-12-2008 and the complainant submitted a complaint with the opposite parties on 12-12-2008 to which there was no response. Thereafter, the opposite parties went on issuing water charge bills regularly demanding exorbitant amounts. On 04-08-2011, the complainant through the promoter lodged a complaint with the opposite party pointing out the excess usage recorded with regard to the consumption of water, especially from 05-02-2011 onwards. The complainant had also requested the opposite parties to replace the water meter. The opposite parties did not take any action. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking the following reliefs :-

1. To get the bills dated 07-04-2010 to 04-08-2011 set aside.

2. To direct the opposite parties to re-issue the bills from 07-04-2010 by recalculating the consumption on the basis of the average consumption of the previous months.

3. To direct the opposite parties not to disconnect the water supply to the complainant.

2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows :-

The water connection was granted in favour of Smt. Jubeena Riyas, Abad Building, P.T. Usha Road on 08-12-1994. The complainant is a stranger to the opposite party. The building is an apartment complex consisting of 13 apartments. The said connection is being used to meet the domestic needs of the 13 families. The average consumption of them was 40.57 KL, since 2005 onwards. The water tariff was revised by the Government with effect from 01-09-2008 and water charges were increased accordingly. The bills are generated and issued to the complainant strictly in accordance with the meter reading. The complainant is liable to pay the amounts as per the bills. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A41 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Ext. B1 was marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the impugned water charge bills set aside?

2. Whether the opposite parties are legally liable to issue a fresh bill for the disputed period on the basis of average previous consumption?

5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- Admittedly, during the proceedings in this Forum at the instance of the complainant, the opposite parties replaced the water meter of the complainant on 11-07-2012. The complainant has no dispute with regard to the bills issued on the basis of the new water meter. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the average consumption of 13 families in the apartment complex per month was below 40 KL. According to the complainant, in spite of that the opposite parties have been issuing bills demanding exorbitant amounts till the replacement of the faulty meter on 11-07-2012. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently and vigorously contended that the opposite parties issued the disputed bills on the basis of the water meter reading and the revision in the water tariff.

1. 1. 6. We have carefully gone through the details of consumption of water by the complainant after the replacement of the water meter on 11-07-2012. It is evident from Exts. A35 and 37 bills that the average monthly consumption of the complainant after the replacement of the new meter is 37.66 KL, which was around the reading before the complaint of excess charges being levied which goes to show that the old meter was indeed mal-functioning.

       

7. We have also perused the average consumption of water by the complainant for the disputed period that is from 09-04-2010 to 11-07-2012 the date of replacement of the water meter which is as follows :-

8. Exts. A12 to A18 goes to show that the average monthly consumption of potable water by the complainant from 05-06-2010 to 04-08-2011 is above 50 KL, and thereafter, indisputably the meter became faulty and from 04-08-2011 to 03-08-2012 the average meter reading is 76.44 KL without change. So evidently, Exts. A12 to A19, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31 and 33 are issued by the opposite parties based on the reading from a faulty meter, which had been replaced with effect from 11-07-2012. It is pertinent to note that neither parties did raise any objection regarding the functioning of the water meter prior to 09-04-2010. We have examined the bills issued by the opposite parties prior to 09-04-2010 which is as follows :-

9. The consumption of water by the complainant during the above period would show that the average monthly consumption per month was 40 KL approximately. We think that the long average consumption of water for a period of 18 months be taken retrospectively from 09-04-2010 and the same made applicable to the disputed period that is from 09-04-2010 to 11-07-2010 the date of replacement of the water meter. Our decision is based on Regulation 17 of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulation) 1991.

10. To set things right, we pass the following order :-

1. We set aside Exts. A12 to A19, A24, A26, A27, A29, A31 and A33 .

2. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally issue a fresh revised bill for the period from 09-04-2010 to 11-07-2012 based on the long average consumption of water by the complainant retrospectively for a period of 18 months from 09-04-2010 as per the water tariff prevailing at that period.

3. The remittances made by the complainant shall be adjusted towards the revised bill and the future bills as the case may be.

4. The complainant is liable to pay the regular bills as per the meter readings in the replaced meter from 11-07-2012 after adjusting the excess amount if any paid.

5. The first limb of the order in I.A. 517/2011 dated 28-09-2011 is made absolute.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of December 2013.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========