IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.88/06 (Filed on 12.04.2006) Between: C.S. Sumathy, Santhosh Bhavan, Azhoor, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. A.M. Aji) ….. Complainant And: 1. Kerala Water Authority, Rep. by its Managing Director, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Sub Division, Pathanamthitta. 3. The Asst. Exe. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Sub Division, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. N.K. Chandrasekharan Nair) ….. Opposite parties. O R D E R Sri. N. Premkumar (Member): Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: Complainant is a resident of Pathanamthitta Municipality and a consumer of the 1st opposite party’s housing water connection. Her consumer number is 119/XD/DTA. Complainant has taken water connection on 1985 and has been using it. From the said period onwards complainant has been promptly paying water charges irrespective of the supply of water or not. 3. Due to the fault of water connection pipe line complainant and the nearby consumers would not get a drop of water from May 2001 to January 2004 period. During the said period complainant and other consumers individually and jointly filed several representation to opposite parties. But they failed to rectify the fault of water supply scheme. At last on January 2004 they try to find out and rectify the fault, but not completely done it. Thereafter they issued a bill of ` 2,688 as extra charge. The said bill is the non-supply of water period. Complainant has paid the fixed charges during the period without any fault. She filed a complaint narrating the said reasons to 3rd opposite party on 7.5.2004. They assured her to do prompt action. Thereafter they had not taken any action as assured and issued another bill of ` 2,920. The said bill was from 11.5.2001 to November 2005 period. After receiving the said bill she again filed a complaint to 3rd opposite party. They has not taken any action. Thereafter they issued a notice on 20.3.2006 for payment of ` 21,464. According to the complainant opposite parties have no right to realize water charge illegally even though complainant has been prompt in paying fixed charges in the non-supply of water periods. Complainant has not been a defaulter. She has to undergone both physical and mental hardship during the non-supply of water period from by collecting water from nearby houses. Hence this complaint for setting aside the bills, reconnection of water supply and compensation. 4. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version admitting that complainant availed the water connection under consumer No.119/D/PTA and monthly tariff is the minimum rate of ` 22 for the consumption of 10 KL/M. The water connection is given to the complainant on 25.3.1985 and the periodical meter reading was taken from time to time. The complainant has remitted the minimum water charge amount up to 6/05 only. There is an interruption in the distribution line of Azhoor area which was identified and rectified within 25 days. The meter reading of the consumer on 3.5.2001 was 671 KL and on 24.7.02 was 952, on 26.6.03 – 1573, on 16.9.03 – 1659, on 1.12.03 – 1732, on 3.2.04 – 1787, on 15.6.04 – 3067, on 18.8.04 – 3860, on 21.12.04 – 3621, on 17.2.05 – 4673, on 23.4.05 – 4729, on 11.7.05 – 4765, on 6.10.05 – 4809, on 20.12.05 – 4862. The meter reading taken from 2001-05 itself shows that the complainant was using sufficient quantity of water for the period. But complainant claimed that she has not getting water. 5. According to opposite parties, an additional bill as per actual meter reading taken from the water meter installed at her premises of the complainant for the period from 21.7.1998 to 3.5.2001. During that period an amount of ` 934 towards the average consumption of 20 KL. But complainant has remitted minimum slab rate of ` 22 m for the minimum consumption of 10 KL at friends counter, Pathanamthitta upto 6/05. She has not remitted the additional bill for the period from 21.7.1998 to 3.5.01. Again issued an additional bill for the succeeding period from 4.5.01 to 3.2.04 for ` 2,688 (including monthly slab rate of ` 81 (22 x3) + 15) at an average consumption of 338.06 KL. On 4.2.04 to 21.12.04 an additional bill of ` 18,544 at an average consumption of 257.06 KL. On 22.12.04 to 11.7.05 an additional bill of ` 210 for the average consumption of 20 KL. On 12.7.05 to 20.12.05 for `125 at an average consumption of 16.6 KL. Moreover monthly tariff from 7/05 to 3/06 comes to ` 243. 6. The complainant is liable to remit the water charges as per agreement and Kerala Water Authority regulation 1991. The bill was issued on the basis of actual meter reading, which measures the quantity of water to the complainant’s house. Since the complainant not paying the dues even after repeated notice, the opposite parties has no alternative but to disconnect the water connection and proceed to recover the dues as per rules. Revenue recovery proceedings are pending against the complainant. 7. There is no negligence or deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. Hence they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The bill issued was on the basis of meter reading installed in the premises of the complainant. Kerala Water Authority has demanded the water charges for the quantity of water consumed by the complainant. In the absence of a dispute regarding the accuracy of the water meter, the water charge bill prepared on the basis of meter reading is correct. Therefore they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost. 8. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complainant is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the relief sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 9. Evidence of the complaint consists of the proof affidavit filed by the power of attorney holder of the complainant. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A9. 10. Evidence of opposite parties consists of the proof affidavit filed by the 3rd opposite party along with certain documents. He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 and B2. After the closure of evidence, both parties were heard. 11. Point Nos. 1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant’s power of attorney holder filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A9. Ext.A1 is the power of attorney executed by the complainant. Ext.A2 is the bill dated 3.5.04 issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A3 is the copy of complaint against Ext.A2 dated 6.12.05 to 3rd opposite party. Ext.A4 is the demand notice issued by the 3rd opposite party. Ext.A5 is the copy of complainant against Ext.A4 to 3rd opposite party. Ext.A6 is the demand notice dated 20.3.06 issued by 3rd opposite party to complainant. Ext.A7 is the provisional invoice card of the complainant. Ext.A8 is the copy of mass representation to 3rd opposite party. Ext.A9 is the copy of provisional invoice card of Viswanathan Nair. 12. In order to prove the opposite parties contention, 3rd opposite party filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the copy of notice issued to the complainant dated 30.5.01 demanding additional water charge of ` 934. Ext.B2 is the copy of consumer personal ledger of Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Sub Division, Pathanamthitta from 6/98 to 20.12.05. 13. On the basis of the contention and averment of the parties, we have perused the entire material on record. Complainant’s case is that she has not get water from May 2001 to January 2004 due to the fault of the pipeline. Complainant and the nearby consumers filed several representations to opposite parties. Even though opposite parties rectified the defect on January 2004, they issued additional bills during the said non-supply of water period. Complainant protested by filing complaint, but opposite parties instead of resolving the complaint, they issued bills of higher amount. Due to non-payment of the said bills, complainant’s water connection was disconnected. 14. According to opposite parties, an interruption occurred in the distribution line for a short period, which was rectified within time. The meter reading taken from 2001-05 shows that complainant has not remitted additional bill, she has been remitted minimum slab rate of ` 22 for the minimum consumption of 10 KL/M. The additional bills issued were on the basis of average consumption above the minimum slab rate of minimum consumption. Opposite parties claim that bills issued were on the basis of actual meter reading. Even after repeated notice, complainant has not willing to pay the due amount. Therefore, they forced to disconnect the water connection. 15. On a perusal of Ext.B1, it is learned that on 21.9.98 to 3.5.01, complainant has to pay ` 934 as additional consumption charge. It is the bill of 33 month. As per Ext.B1, complainant has used an average consumption of 20 KL/M. Ext.A2 shows that from 3.5.01 to 3.2.04 complainant has to pay ` 2,688 as consumption charges. It also disclosed that complainant has used an average consumption of 33.8 KL/M during the said 33 months. Ext.A4 is the bill of ` 2,920 from 5/01 to 11/05. Ext.A4 amount contains Ext.A2 amount also. The difference is only ` 242. 16. On going through Ext.A6, it is revealed that during the Ext.A4 period complainant has to remit ` 21,464. Ext.A4 was issued on 3.12.05 and Ext.A6 was issued on 20.3.06. In Ext.A6, there is no explanation regarding the issuance of Ext.A4. What prevented the opposite parties to issue a calculated bill like Ext.A2 instead Ext.A6 to justify the amount? Is it an outcome of Ext.A3 and A6 to shut the month of the complainant? 17. On a perusal of Ext.B1, it is learned that from 21.7.98 to 3.5.01 period the average consumption is 20 KL/M. During Ext.A2 period (from 3.5.01 to 3.2.04) the average consumption is 33 KL/M. Ext.A4 shows that during A4 period (from 5/01 to 11/05) the average consumption is less than 30 KL/M. This means that during the said period there occurred some interruption in the supply of water. But opposite parties contention as per Ext.B2 is that from 3.2.04 to 21.12.04, the average consumption (for 30 months) is 257.16 KL/M. By comparing with Ext.B1, Ext.A2 and A4, it is doubling seven times. Evidence on record does not show that the said period any building construction has going on by complainant. But she has the complaint regarding non-supply of water. 18. On a perusal of Ext.B2, it is evident that overwriting, correction in both date and figures. According to opposite parties meter reading has usually taken in every six months. But in Ext.B2, meter reading is seen to have taken in every two and three months in certain year. The variation in quantity consumed as recorded in Ext.B2 from 3.2.04 to 20.12.05 is incompatible with the average quantity consumed as per Ext.B1, A2 and A4. The variation is worked out and shown below:- Date of meter reading | Approximate months | Meter reading | Quantity consumed | 3.2.2004 | 2 | 1787 | 55 KL/M | 15.6.2004 | 4 | 3067 | 1280 | 18.8.2004 | 2 | 3860 | 793 | 21.12.2004 | 4 | 4621 | 761 | 17.2.2005 | 2 | 4673 | 52 | 23.4.2005 | 2 | 4722 | 89 | 11.7.2005 | 3 | 4765 | 43 | 6.10.2005 | 3 | 4809 | 44 | 20.12.2005 | 2 | 4862 | 53 |
19. It is pertinent to note that disputed quantity as shown above will have happened when Ext.A3 and A5 complaints were still persisting. The quantity consumed as recorded in Page No.2 of Ext.B2, during the period from 15.6.04 were 1280 KL, 793 KL, 761 KL. We cannot find any possibility of consumption of such quantities of water by the complainant, compared to the prior consumption recorded in 1st page of Ext.B2. Therefore the said quantity consumed as recorded is not digestible, which shakes the genuineness of 2nd page of Ext.B2 and thereby Ext.A6. Ext.A6 is an after thought after issuing Ext.A4. The explanation given by DW1 pertaining to Ext.A6 and B2 is not convincing. 20. Moreover, opposite parties has not produce the actual meter reading book, the book they relied for preparing Ext.B2 and Ext.A6. Without producing the meter-reading book, they cannot prove the claim of Ext.A6 amount. On the other hand, Ext.B1 and Ext.A2 having calculations regarding the quantity of average consumption of water and its price etc. Therefore, the said bills are reliable even though complainant challenged it. Though Ext.A4 does not having any calculations, the amount involved in Ext.B1 and Ext.A2 included in it. The difference is presumed to be the charges of the remaining period. Therefore Ext.A4 is reliable. Moreover Ext.A7 shows that complainant cleared the monthly slab amount up to 1/06 period. 21. From the overall fact and circumstances of the case, it is come to the knowledge that, no audit has taken place in 3rd opposite parties’ office since 1998. Normally audit makes to rejuvenate the performance, which leads to attain perfection. Absence of such audit will have the chance to get the opportunity to manipulate the record at any time. But such records having no effect and value in the eye of law. As a public functionary, opposite parties has to do transparency and conscience in their dealing with consumers. In this juncture we are of the view that the bills not in accordance with consumption is illegal, irrational and against all the cannons of justice. It is a clear deficiency of service also. Therefore complaint is partly allowable by setting aside Ext.A6 bill with compensation. 22. In the result, complaint is partly allowed as stated below: (1) Ext.A6 bill issued by the opposite parties is hereby set aside and opposite parties are directed to withdraw the revenue recovery proceeding based on Ext.A6 bill. (2) Opposite parties are directed to pay ` 2,500 (Rupees Two Thousand Five hundred only) as compensation to the complainant. (3) Complainant is directed to pay Ext.A4 bill either by adjusting the compensation amount or by payment. On payment of the said amount opposite parties are directed to reconnect the supply without any delay. (4) Opposite parties are at liberty to issue fresh bill on the basis of actual meter reading from 12/05 to 28.3.06 and in that event regular payments made during the said period shall be adjusted in the new bill. 23. Since the complainant has no prayer for cost, same has not been allowed. Both parties are directed to comply the order within 15 days from the date of receiving this order. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of November, 2010. (Sd/-) N. Premkumar, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Suresh Babu. S Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Power of attorney executed by the complainant C.S. Sumathy. A2 : Bill dated 3.5.04 for Rs.2,688 issued by 3rd opposite party to the complainant. A3 : Photocopy of letter dated 7.3.04 sent by the complainant to 3rd opposite party. A4 : Demand notice dated 3.12.05 issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant. A5 : Photocopy of letter dated 6.12.05 sent by the complainant to 3rd opposite party. A6 : Demand notice dated 20.3.06 issued by 3rd opposite party to complainant. A7 : Provisional invoice card of the complainant. A8 : Photocopy of mass representation issued by the complainant to 3rd opposite party. A9 : Photocopy of provisional invoice card of Viswanathan Nair. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : V. Vasanthakumar. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Photocopy of bill dated 30.5.01 for Rs.934 issued by 3rd opposite party to the complainant. B2 : Photocopy of Consumer Personal Ledger of Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Sub Division, Pathanamthitta. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) C.S. Sumathy, Santhosh Bhavan, Azhoor, Pathanamthitta. (2) Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram. (3) The Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Sub Division, Pathanamthitta. (4) The Asst. Exe. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Sub Division, Pathanamthitta. (5) The Stock File. | 
