IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 29th day of October, 2024
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 255/2023 (Filed on 08/08/2023)
Complainant : Dr.E.K.Vijayakumar
Secretary
Athurasramam Working Women's Hostel T.C 12/1441-1,
P.M.G Junction
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033
Managed by Athura Seva Sangam Athurasramam
Sachivothamapuram P.O.
Kurichy
(By Adv. Akash K.R)
Vs.
Opposite Party : Exe. Engineer
Kerala Water Authority
Palayam Junction
Thiruvananthapuram
(By Adv. Pillai Jayaprakash Raveendran)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
This complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Crux of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant is the secretary of Athurasramam Seva Sangam, which is registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act. The complainant is running Athurasramam Working Women's Hostel at PMG junction, Thiruvananthapuram. The hostel is provided with a nondomestic water connection from the opposite party vide consumer no. PLM/6360/N. The complainant is remitting the entire bill promptly, and there are no pending dues to the opposite party. The opposite party issued a bill for 88,871 on 27-04-2023, and the complainant paid the bill amount. The opposite party issued a bill dated 26-06-2023 for Rs.1,09,555/-. As per the bill, the consumption of the complainant is shown as 1380 KL bi-monthly. The bi-monthly average consumption of the complainant from April 2023 would come around an average of 335 KL. At the time of payment of the bill amount dated 27-04-2023, the complainant raised his concern with the authorities, and it was promised that the same be looked into. According to the complainant, in any way, the complainant has not consumed such a huge quantity of water during the billing period of May /June 2023. It is averred in the complaint that the said calculation is made without any basis, and the act of the opposite party in issuing a bill for the water that the complainant does not consume amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to set aside the bill dated 26-6-2023 issued by the opposite party and to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost of this litigation.
Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before the commission and filed a version contending as follows:
The nondomestic water connection, which had the number PLM 6360/N, was allowed in the name of President, TC 12/ 1441-1 working women hostel in Thiruvananthapuram. The meter readings taken from the water meter, which is kept aloof within the premises of the complainant, revealed that the complainant is having a huge consumption of water. This was the only reason they got bills with greater value. If the consumer had any doubts regarding running the water meter, he could have raised that with consumer service for testing the water meter. However, the complainant is reluctant to do so since the complainant is well aware that the issue is purely based on the consumed water and does not warrant any revision. At present, the water meter fixed at the premises of the complainant is found faulty, and the consumer was informed accordingly. The consumption chart in the version proves that the complainant has a steady huge consumption of water from time to time, and also, the complainant replaced the water meter at such intervals, owing to different reasons.
The complainant replaced the water meter at such intervals and finally, on 13-03-2023. The water meter was not functioning and was declared faulty on 22-08-2023. Though the water meter was replaced, the complainant's consumption has been steady. Therefore, the bills issued amounting to Rs.1,09,555/- are in tune with the actual consumption of water, and the complainant is liable to remit the same. The water charges have been revised with effect from 02-02-2023 and that being, the charges were increased by comparing it to the charges imposed to the consumer prior to revision. The consumption chart showed that they have a huge consumption of water, and this may vary from time to time in accordance with the total number of inmates there. According to the opposite party, all meter readings were promptly entered, and there arose no doubt of the quantity of water consumed by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the party of the opposite party.
The complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and exhibits A1 to A5 from the side of the complainant. The opposite party filed an affidavit in lieu of the chief examination. There is no documentary evidence from the side of the opposite party.
On evaluation of the complaint, version, and evidence on record, we would like to consider the following points.
- Is there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
For convenience, we would like to consider
POINTS 1 & 2 TOGETHER.
The complainant alleged that the opposite party issued Exhibit A1 bill without any basis. The opposite party justifies the issuance of Exhibit A1 bill relying on the average bimonthly consumption of water as per the regulation.
Exhibit A1 Consumer ledger - latest bill dtd.26.6.2023 is the demand cum disconnection issued by the opposite party to the complainant in, which included the bimonthly water charges for Rs. 72,902/- and adjustment other amount as Rs. 36,651/-. Ongoing through the complaint, there is no allegation that the meter was faulty or that the readings were erroneous. Regulation, 13 of water supply regulations, stipulated the procedure to be adopted in the matter of assessment of water charges. Regulation 13 (C) read as follows:-
The Authority may also introduce a slab system for collection of water charges. The slab so fixed shall be revised if the consumption of water at the premises of the consumer is found to have increased or decreased, as the case may, based on the observations of meter readings taken in the subsequent six months. During the argument, the learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that Exhibit A1 is a fabricated bill as the bill date is shown before the date of inspection. On perusal of Exhibit.A1, the bill dated 26-6-2023, the opening date is shown as 04-05-2023, and the closing date is shown as 30-06-2023. Notably, in Exhibit A1 Consumer ledger- latest bill, there was no demand for additional amounts, surcharges, penalties, or arrears. It is pertinent to note that in Exhibit A1, it is recorded that Adjustment amount as zero. However, the opposite party demanded Rs. 36,651/- from the head of the adjustment without furnishing the details. On going through Exhibit A1, we can see that the previous reading of the complainant as of 04-05-2023 was recorded as 1008, the present and closing reading as 2388 kilolitres, and the present consumption was 1380 kilolitres.
Admittedly, the Exhibit A1 bill was issued by the opposite party, but they have not explained those anomalies in the Exhibit A1 bill.
Exhibit A2 proves that the complainant had paid Rs. 88,871/- on 14-06-2023 against the bill issued on 27-04-2023. The opposite parties did not deny the same. Therefore, we can infer that the complainant paid the water charges up to 27-04-2024 after installing the new water meter on 13 -03- 2023.
On going through the consumption chart in version and as well as in the proof affidavit, we can see that the monthly consumption of the complainant as of 04-05-2023 was 182 Kl, and as of 30-06-2023, it was 589.62 KL. It is pertinent to note that as of 13-3-2023, the monthly consumption of the complainant was 170 KL, and on 28-12-2022, it was 151.5 KL as per the consumption chart described in the version and proof affidavit of the opposite party.
As per the aforesaid consumption chart, the average monthly consumption of the complainant was below 200 KL before and after the issuance of the exhibit A1 bill. We cannot accept the contention of the opposite party that the consumption of the complainant was considerably increased to 589 KL per month from an average consumption below 200 KL per month. In the absence of convincing evidence from the opposite party, we have no hesitation to hold that the Exhibit A1 bill is not genuine and that it was created by opposite party without any basis. It is the bounden duty of the opposite party to substantiate their contention with sufficient evidence. Here, there is no evidence from the side of the opposite party to show that Exhibit A1 is genuine. So, the Exhibit A1 bill is found fabricated.
As a result, the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed as follows:-
- We hereby cancel the Exhibit A1 bill vide no. 118858016 dated 26-6-2023, which was issued by the opposite party to the complainant. It is further made clear that the opposite party is at liberty to issue a fresh bill for the actual consumption of the complainant without levying any penal charge.
- The opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) to the complainant. It shall either be paid to the complainant or deducted from future bill amounts.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of October, 2024
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
A1 –Copy of Consumer Ledger dtd. 26/06/2023
A2 – Copy of the receipt dtd. 14/06/2023
A3 – Copy of the receipt dtd. 24/05/2022
A4 – Copy of the online report dtd. 06/03/2023
A5 – Online Bill dtd. 26/06/2024
Exhibits from the side of Opposite parties :
Nil
By Order ,
Assistant Registrar
