IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 29^th day of October 2022

Filed on: 25.05.2018

PRESENT:

Shri.D.B.Binu President

Shri.V.Ramachandran Member

Smt.Sreevidhia T.N. Member

C.C.No.223/2018

COMPLAINANT ::

A.Sainulabdin, Valiyaveettil, House No.530/11, Pallilamkara,
HMT Colony P.O., Ernakulam, Pin-683 503

(Party-in-person)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTY ::

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Sub-Division, Kalamassery, Kochi

(O.p rep. Adv.Rekha K.B., Standing Counsel of Kerala Water Authority,
Puthen Veedu, Nayarambalam Bagavathi Temple East Road, Nayarambalam P.O., Pin-682 509)

F I N A L O R D E R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and he was making advance payments for the water charges. The opposite party had issued a bill No.33692220 dated 20.02.2018 and there was an excess amount of Rs.2103/-. On 19.04.2018, the meter reader who visited the house of the complainant and issued the bill for an amount of Rs.8505/-. On 20.10.2018 the opposite party had issued another bill demanding Rs.14,314/-. As per notice dated 22.12.2018 it was found that the meter was faulty and showing over reading. The complainant states that the opposite party had issued bills without verifying the conditions of the water meter. Accordingly, as per bill No.2680 dated 27.12.2018 a new water meter was purchased for an amount of 1100/- and it was provided before the officials of water authority. But the authorities refused to give permission to instal the new meter. In order to find the correct amount of water consumption the meter was installed on 07.10.2019. It was revealed that the actual consumption for a day is less than 1 KL . On 26.02.2019 the meter reader visited the complainant’s house and connected papers were verified. For the period from 07.01.2019 tp 26.02.2019 the consumption was 37 points. Bills were not issued for the periods from 23.01.2018 to 26.02.2019.

On 19.04.2018, when the complainant and his wife were out of station , the meter reader estimated the consumption of water as 133KL. Unfortunately, the gate was locked at the time of taking water meter reading. In the spot billing system there is no provision to estimate the consumption. The complainant states that in this circumstances, the additional bill for Rs.8505/- is liable to be cancelled.

The meter reader failed to convey the information regarding the faulty of the meter. The additional bills were prepared on the basis of data collected from the faulty meter and not based on actual consumption of water. The water authority introduced the spot billing system for speedy billing and easily remittance. The bill dated 19.04.2018 was prepared without reading the meter. The complainant also states that the water authority is also threatening to cut water connection and to impose penalty. The meter reader failed to inform the condition of water meter and had estimated a very high demand. The complainant also states that the average consumption of water per day is only one unit as per records. For the period from 07.01.2019 to 20.06.2019, the water consumption is only 39 KL. The complainant had to suffer great mental pain and agony due to the heavy bills issued by the opposite party. Hence the complainant approached the Commission seeking orders directing the opposite party to adopt the bimonthly consumption at 39 and calculate the water charges for the period from April 2018 onwards.

2) Notice

When the case was taken on file, the Commission issued notice to the opposite party on 02.06.2018 and the case was posted to 27.06.2018 for R/N appearance of the opposite party.

Upon notice the 1^st opposite party appeared and filed their version. The 2^nd opposite party adopts the contentions of the 1^st opposite party .

3) Version filed by the 1^st opposite party

The complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. There is no merit in the contentions of the complaint. The complainant is a consumer of Kerala Water Authority with consumer No.KLY/2560/D. Regular meter readings were taken from the water meter of the complainant during the part several years. When the meter reader went to record the meter reading on 24.10.2017, and on 20.12.2017 he could not get the meter reading since the gate was locked/not access. On 03.02.2018, the complainant remitted an amount of Rs. 2000/- as advance which was not based on the meter readings and bills issued.

On 21.02.2018, a reading was obtained as 1817 KL and an adjustment bill was issued with an average monthly consumption of 66.36 KL (bimonthly consumption of 133 KL). When the meter reading is not available during the regular reading dates, adjustment bill has to be issued for the period in which the meter reading could not be obtained dividing the months in between the earlier reading and the present meter reading. The same procedure was adopted and there is no loss to the consumer in issuing the adjustment bill. The issuance of adjustment bill is the only method to collect water charges for the period in which the meter reading could not be obtained.

There are only 2 persons to use the water is not tenable. Water charge is not assessing based on the number of members to use the water. Water charge is assessed based on the meter readings without proving that the water meter is not working or recording excess reading, the complainant is not entitled to content that he is not liable to remit the bills issued based on water meter readings. If the complainant has got any doubt that the alleged excess water reading is due to hidden leakage, he has to establish the same and in such circumstances he is entitled to get ‘leak benefit’ once in lifetime.

There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint.

4) Evidence

Evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which are marked as Exbt.A1 to A6. No oral evidence from the side of the complainant.

The opposite party filed six documents which are marked as Exbt.B1 to B6. The opposite party has no oral evidence.

5) The issues came up for consideration in the case are as follows:

1) Is there any deficiency of service is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?

2) If so, reliefs and costs?

We have gone through the complaint, version and documents from both sides. The specific case of the complainant is that he had a domestic connection from the opposite party and he had remitted the water charges in advance payment. But on 20.02.2018, the opposite party issued a bill of an excess amount of Rs.2103. On 19.04.2018, the complainants were out of station and the gate was locked. The meter reader who visited on that date issued additional bills for an amount of Rs.8505/-. On 20.10.2018, the water authority issued another bill demanding Rs.14314/-. As per notice dated 22.12.2018, it was found that the water meter was faulty and showing over reading (Exbt.A2). On 20.04.2019, the opposite party had issued another bill for Rs.24377, which is proved as per Exbt.A6. So it is evident that opposite party was issuing bills without verifying the condition of the water meter. Since the water meter was found faulty, the demand created is on ‘false date’ is against the interest of the consumers and the same is liable to be detected. Being a service pensioner, the complainant is not in a position to remit the demand illegally created by the opposite parties on the basis of reading from a water meter which was found faulty.

In order to find the truth of the correct amount of water consumption, as per the meter installed on 07.01.2019, it is revealed that the actual consumption for a day is less than 1 KL. On 26.02.2019 the meter reader visited and connected papers were verified. For the period from 07.01.2019 to 26.02.2019the consumption of water was 37 points. Bills were not issued for the periods from 23.01.2018 to 26.02.2019.

Since the gate was locked the meter reader estimated the consumption of water at 133 KL. In the spot billing system there is no provision to estimate the consumption of water. In this circumstances, the additional bill for Rs.8505/- is liable to be cancelled.

The specific contention of the opposite party is that the regular meter readings were taken from the water meter of the complainant during the past several years. On 24.10.2017 and 20.12.2017 the meter reader could not taken the meter readings since the gate was locked/not access . On 03.02.2018 the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.2000/- as advance which was not based on the meter readings and the bills issued.

On 21.02.2018, a reading was obtained as 1817KL and an adjustment bill was issued with an average monthly consumption of 66.36 KL (bimonthly consumption of 133 KL. When the meter reading is not available during the regular reeding dates, adjustment bill has to be issued for the period in which the meter reading could not be obtained, dividing the months in between the earlier reading and the present meter reading. In this case also the same procedure was adopted and there is no loss to the consumer in using the adjustment bill. There is no illegality also in issuing the adjustment. There is no deficiency of service from the side of the opposite party.

Admittedly, the bills for the disputed period were prepared by the opposite party and the water meter was not working properly. If the water meter was not working, the normal practice and procedures is to replace the water meter and taking proper meter readings after the installation of the new water meter instead of the faulty meter reader and calculate the average consumption on the basis of new readings from the new meter.

From the available documents and evidence from this case the bill amount demanded by the opposite parties are ex-exorbitant and on what basis the opposite parties adopted the calculations. Moreover, the complainant has not remitted the monthly charges as per PIC (Provisional Invoice Card). The complainant is liable to remit the monthly water charges as per PIC. The opposite party can revised the PIC on the basis of taking proper water readings from the new water meter which is working properly.

For these reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is liable to be allowed.

In the result the complaint is disposed as follows:-

1) We set aside the disputed bills issued by the opposite party to the complainant.

2) We direct the opposite party to issue proper bills after taking proper meter readings after calculating the average consumption if any.

3) We direct the opposite party to revised the present PIC (Provisional Invoice Card) if the water consumption of the complainant is over and the existing PIC Tariff.

We are of the opinion that there is no need of compensation and cost of the proceedings in this case in the interest of justice.

Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 29^th day of October 2022.

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded by Order

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s Exhibits ::

Opposite party’s Exhibits ::

C.C. No.95/2018

Order dated 19.09.2022

C.C.No.223/2018

Order dated 29.10.2022