IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 28th day of September, 2020
Present: Sri. Manulal.V.S, President
Smt..Bindhu.R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
CC No.91/18(Filed on 30/10/19)
Complainant : Chacko Peter
Srampickal House,
Vadavathoor PO,
Kottayam.
(Adv. P.N.Ashok Babu)
Vs
Opposite parties : 1)Kerala Water Authority,
Jalabhavan, Vellayambalam-31
Repted by Managing Director
2) Assistant Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority
P.H.Sub Division, Kottayam.
Sri. Manulal.V.S, President
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties since last 30 years. The complainant availed a domestic water connection to his house from the opposite parties vide consumer number VPM/1960/D. His consumer ID number is 2355103185. The complainant and his wife are residing in the house. It is alleged in the complaint that he has in his premises a well as an alternative source of water. The opposite parties were providing water supply only on Wednesdays and Sundays in every week. So his consumption of water for domestic purpose from the connection provided by the opposite parties was minimal. He was regular in payment of water charges in accordance with consumption recorded from time to time. From the last three years the complainant had paid below Rs. 100/- as his bi- monthly water charge. He was given an invoice card to record periodical payment based on the meter reading. The opposite parties were bound to issue adjustment bills in every six months based on meter reading. It is their duty to provide proper service to the customers. They are duty bound to provide uninterrupted supply of water. Not only that, they are bound to make proper levy and collection of water charges. The opposite parties did not issue any adjustment bill nor did they record meter reading in the invoice card of the complainant for the last several years and there were no arrears till the end of January 2018. But the complainant was served with a demand cum disconnection notice on 4-5-2018 directing him to pay Rs.64,990/- as bi monthly water charge of Rs.11,882/- along with an additional charge of Rs. 53,108/-. Though the bill was prepared on the basis of an average consumption of the complainant it was not prepared in accordance with law. The opposite parties were silent for a long period and the intention was to get undue enrichment by charging higher tariff for the entire quantity of water spread over many years. Though the complainant requested for fixing of an air valve in the water connection of the complainant it was unheard. The opposite parties are guilty of willful negligence in the matter of performing their duties. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant wanted to set aside the bill and sufficient compensation.
Upon notice from this commission the opposite parties appeared before the commission and filed joint version contending as follows:
Complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer number VPM/1960/D and the said connection was given to him on 16-3-1991. Water meter readings of the complainant were regularly taken. As per water meter reading recorded on 26-7-2016 the consumption of the complainant was 236 kiloliter and the monthly water charge was Rs. 22. Though the officials of the opposite parties went to the premises of the complainant to take water meter reading as per law in due time they were unable to record the meter reading due to the reason that the door was locked till 05-1-2018 and recorded the reading as 2089 kiloliter. As per water meter reading the average monthly consumption of the complainant from the period 26-7-2016 to 5-1-2018 was 106.76 kiloliter and water charge was Rs.2972/- per month. The additional bill was issued on the basis of the meter reading from 26-7-2016 to 5-1-2018. Thereafter his average monthly consumption was reduced to 36.04 kiloliter as per the meter reading recorded on 4-5-2018. So Rs. 10,152 is reduced from the bill.
The water meter of the complainant was erected in lower level than the distribution pipeline. Therefore there was no possibility to record excess reading due air pressure. As per the law it is the duty of the complainant to rectify the defects in the pipeline from the point of connection. KWA authorities on suspicion of the hidden leakage of water in the pipeline directed the complainant to check the pipeline installation of the complainant. But the complainant was reluctant to do the same.
The opposite parties issued the additional bill on the basis of monthly average consumption of the complainant in accordance with law. Hence there is no deficiency in service. And the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In order to prove his case the complainant filed proof affidavit and exhibit A1 to A3 were marked. Assistant executive engineer of the second opposite party filed proof affidavit for himself and on behalf of the first opposite party and Exhibit B1 got marked.
On perusal of the complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider the point No. 1 and 2 together.
Admittedly the complainant is a consumer of water for domestic purpose provided by the opposite parties. There is no dispute that the consumer was provided a provisional invoice card and he was remitting the amount as per the provisional invoice card without default. While so appellants issued Ext.A3 bill for Rs.64, 990/- on 2-5-2018 towards bi monthly water consumption and additional bill. The complainant has contended that the issuance of this bill is violative of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply Regulations, 1991) in as much as the appellants failed to record the meter reading of actual consumption every six months and issue revised bill accordingly. By belatedly issuing the bill on 2-5-2018 additional burden was cast upon the complainant to pay consolidated sum for the entire period. The question is whether this amounts to deficiency in service.
The complainant produced the water bill for the period of 2-12-13 to 1-1- 18 and marked as exhibit A2 series. On perusal of the exhibit A2 series bills we can see that there are endorsements in several bills by the spot meter reader as meter reading as G/L. On verification of Exhibit A2 (b) to A2 (e) we can see that the opposite parties issued the bill without recording the metre reading of the complainant. In exhibit A2(f) the water meter reading is recorded as 2089 on 5-1-2018. On the other hand the opposite parties contended that though the officials went for taking the meter reading of the complainant the door was closed and hence no readings were recorded after 26-7-2016 to 5-1-2018.
Exhibit A3 is the demand cum disconnection notice issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. In exhibit A3 it is recorded that the bi monthly consumption of the complainant from 1-5-2018 to 4-5-2018 is 214 kiloliter and the water charge for the same is 11682. It is further demanded in the exhibit A3 to pay an amount of Rs. 53108 as additional bill amount. The opposite parties contended that as per water meter reading the average monthly consumption of the complainant from the period 26-7-2016 to 5-1-2018 was 106.76 kiloliter and water charge was Rs.2972/- per month. Exhibit A3 bill was issued on the basis of the meter reading from 26-7-2016 to 5-1-2018. As per regulation 13 of the Kerala Water Supply Regulation, Kerala Water Authority is bound to record the meter readings at an interval of six months, but it is clear from Ext.B1 computer printout of consumer personal ledger that meter reading was taken in July 2016 and thereafter the meter reading was taken only in January 2018.
Section 13 (b) of (water supply regulations 1991) Kerala Water Authority says “(b)The Authority may also fix the monthly rate of water charges of a consumer based on his average consumption of water for any previous six months in the case of existing connections and based on the estimated consumption in the case of new connections and issue a provisional card in Form No.VIII indicating therein the amount of water charges payable by the consumer every month, the date of payment and the institution at which the amount is to be remitted. The charges so fixed shall be revised if the consumption of water at the premises of the consumer is found to have increased or decreased based on the observations of the meter readings taken in the subsequent six months to the last period. (Duplicate copy of Provisional Invoice Card/Meter Card or such records may be issued by the Authority for purposes of recording meter reading, billing and collection on request by the consumer, after charging a fee of Rs.10. Such duplicate copies shall be issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer concerned).”
We may also note the decision by the Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in the case of Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority and anr. Vs. the Bishop of Quilon. “Admittedly the first opposite party issued the additional bill dated 26.11.2019 for Rs.12,791/- and that the said additional bill was issued for the period ranging from June 1995 to April 1999. There can be no doubt about the fact that as per the Provisions of Regulations 13, of the Kerala Water Supply Regulations, the Kerala Water Authority is bound to record the meter readings at an interval of 6 months. Ext.D1 and D2 Consumer Personal Ledger and meter reading register would make it clear that the opposite parties Kerala Water Authority has totally failed in recording the meter readings at an interval of 6 months. Ext.D1 and D2 would make it clear that the meter reading was taken in July 1995 and thereafter the net reading was taken in February 1998. Likewise, the meter reading was taken in April 1994 and thereafter the same was taken in July 1995. Thus, there was negligence or omissions on the part of the first opposite party in taking meter readings. The first opposite party is duty bound to issue additional bill if any at an interval of 6 months. In this case the first opposite party issued Ext.P2 bill for a period from June 1995 to April 1999. The issuance of Ext.P2 additional bill for Rs.12,791/- can be treated an action in violation of the provisions contained in Regulation 13 of Water Supply Regulations. Thus, the forum below has rightly cancelled the Ext.P2 additional bill for Rs.12,791/-. Moreover, the opposite parties have not succeeded in establishing their case regarding excess consumption of water. The original meter reading register or consumer personal ledger had not been produced before the forum below. The person who made entries in the original of Ext.D1 and D2 registers had not been examined. Thus, in all respects the demand of Rs.12,791/-by way of additional bill for a period from June 1995 to April 1999 can be treated as a sort of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. So, the order passed by the forum below cancelling Ext.P2 bill for Rs.12,791/- is to be upheld”.
On perusal of water meter reading of the complainant which is recorded in Exhibit B1 we can see that there was no such huge consumption of the water by the complainant from 26-4-2010 onwards. Further we also observe that during the period covered by Exhibit A3 bill dated 2/05/2018 issued by the opposite parties the complainant had no occasion to consume large quantity of water because of which additional bill for Rs.53108/- was issued to him and also he is not using the water other than for domestic purpose. Though the opposite parties contended that there might be a hidden leakage in the connection of the complainant they did not produce any evidence to substantiate their contention in this regard.
We also observe that there is clear negligence and omission committed by the opposite parties by not taking water meter readings of the complainant consumer regularly and not issuing bills regularly. Hence we are of the opinion that issuance of Ext.A4 bill is in violation of the regulation 13 of the Kerala Water Supply Regulation which can be seen as deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties.
Taking all the above into consideration the complaint is partly allowed. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had consumed the water from 26-7-2016 and he is liable to pay for the same. In the circumstances we allow the complaint in part and pass the following order.
We hereby set aside the bill no.35748800 Dated 2-5-2018 and opposite party is directed to issue the water bill in accordance with the law without levying any penal charge.
Considering the nature of the litigation compensation and cost is not allowed.
The Order shall be complied with within 30days from the date of receipt of copy of the order..
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of September, 2020
Sri. Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt..Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant.
A1-Copy of Aadhaar card
A2-Copy of series of bills(7 nos.)
A3-Bill No.35748800 dtd 2/5/18 for Rs.64990/-
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
B1-Copy of consumer personal ledger (details)
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
