Paul Gomez, Member.
The following facts have given rise to the complaint.
Complainant is the beneficiary of the water connection allotted to his late father by 1st opposite party. The average consumption since 2008 in respect of the impugned connection has been approximately 22 KL per month. But a sudden spurt in the consumption was noticed in the meter reading of 12-01-2010 which was brought to the notice of the authority ultimately the water meter was tested and found defective on 21-05-2010 and new meter was installed in the month of January 2011. When 2nd opposite party was approached to rectify the anomalies in the bills, he directed him to remit Rs. 3,000/- which was complied with. A petition before the District legal services Authority did not bear fruits. On 11-03-20100 a bill to the tune of Rs. 50336/- was served on him which contained a warning of disconnection in case the amount was not remitted. That is how the complainant is brought before the forum for quashing the impugned latest bill along with several other reliefs.
2. Opposite parties filed version denying the allegations made in the complaint. They challenge the very maintainability of the complaint on many scores. It is contended that the bills have been issued only according to the consumption. It is stated that the faulty meter was replaced on 03-12-2010. As per reading on 15-03-2011 the consumption was recorded as 25.4 KL and revised bills was issued accordingly. Opposite parties issued bills only according to Kerala Water Supply & Sewarages Act. Hence it is urged on us to dismiss the complaint.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A16 marked on his side. No oral evidence for opposite parties. But Ext. B1 was marked on their side. Learned counsel appearing for parties were heard.
4. The points deserving resolution are:
(i) Whether opposite parties are justified in issuing impugned bills.
(ii) What are reliefs, if any allowable?
5. This dispute arises out of water charges claimed by the opposite parties which according to the complainant do not correspond with the actual consumption. The complainant had no complaint regarding the water charges till 20-11-2009. Ext. B1 copy of consumer Ledger produced by 2nd opposite party would underline this fact. The said document would go to show that from 12-01-2010 there was sudden and unreasonable spurt which persisted till 18-11-2010. No recording was made on 09-07-2010 and 18-09-2010. Exts. A1to A4 would show that the accounts charged in respect of water consumption was reasonable. But there after the charges kept on mounting till reaching the Exts A15 amount of Rs. 50,366/- only. In the version filed by opposite parties the details of the consumption pattern is shown. It is evident that on 09-07-2010 and 18-09-2010 the reading is stated to be not clear. It is pertinent to ;note that admittedly the meter was faulty for some time. It was replaced by a new meter on 03-12-2010. The readings recorded thereafter approximately resembles with that of the period over which complainant had no protest. Therefore, in our view, the complaint is not empty. The learned counsel has suggested that according to the reading recorded after the installation of fresh meter, the complainant was required to remit only Rs.37,535/- only. The response from complainant to this question was in the negative showing his disapproval of the suggestion. We think it is just and reasonable to issue fresh bill on the basis of average consumption over the period from 22-05-2008 to 20-11-2009 and 2nd opposite party will issue fresh bill over the period of 12-01-2010 to 15-03-2011 on the basis of such an average consumption arrived at. In view of the facts and circumstances peculiar to this complaint, we do not think that complainant deserve any other relief.
6. To sum up, the complaint is allowed as follows:
2nd opposite party is directed to issue fresh bill over the period between 12-01-2011 and 15-03-2011 on the basis of average consumption calculated pertaining to the span of time between22-05-2008 and 20-11-2009. If any sum is found to have been paid in excess by the complainant when calculations are made on the basis of this formula the excess amount shall be adjusted in the future bills.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of September 2011.
