PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of January 2012
Filed on : 19/03/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 160/2011
Between
John K.J., : Complainant
K.T. Joseph, A1, (By Adv. V. Sreeja, KNB Nair
Kendriya Vihar Ambalamedu P.O., Associates, Morning Star,
Ernakulam, Building, Kacheripaddy,
Now residing at C-179, Cochin-18)
Sainik Nagar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110 059,
rep. by his Power of Attorney
Holder Rajesh. G.,
S/o. Gopalakrishnan Nair,
Dwaraka, Eramallor P.O.,
Alappuzha.
And
1. Kerala Water Authority, : Opposite parties
Water Supply Sub Division, (Party-in-person)
Choondy, Puthencruz.
2. Asst. Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority
Supply Sub Division,
Choondy, Puthencruz.
3. Executive Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
Supply Sub Division,
Choondy, Puthencruz.
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
Complaint stems out of the following facts.
The complainant has a water connection with the 1st opposite party under domestic category. Complainant had been remitting water charges @ 87/- during the period from 21-11-2008 to 24-09-2009. Thereafter, the opposite party fixed a new water meter in the month of December 2009. To his surprise, a bill to the tune of Rs. 7434 for 2 months consumption was served to him on 23-01-2010. Then they issued a bill of Rs. 5,734/- on 25-10-2010 for the period from 25-11-2009 to 26-11-2010. The gist of the allegation is that the meter reading noted in the Bill No. 11001 and 91570 are exorbitant and illegal. The arrear bills were prepared on the basis of imaginary calculations. Hence this complaint is filed to set aside Ext. A3 and A4 bills and seeking direction from opposite parties to issue fresh bill for water charges based on actual consumption.
2. Version was filed by opposite parties denying the allegations. complainant was served with a bill Sl. No. 91570 dated 23-01-2010 amounting to Rs. 7,434/- was issued as per readings on 25-11-2009 and 25-01-2010. The bills are issued according to the consumption of the consumer. On 04/02/2010 the complainant have a request in the opposite parties office to check his water meter and accordingly it was checked and found that it was working properly. Thereafter the complainant herself removed the meter with the permission of opposite parties and it was further inspected in the office of the Asst. Executive Engineer, Water Work Sub Division, Kochi and was found that the meter was working correctly. The Exhibits A3 and A4 are prepared based on the water meter reading and the complainant is liable to pay the bill amounts. There is no merit in the complaint and hence it deserves dismissal.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. Exts. B1 to B3 were marked on the side of opposite parties. The learned counsel on both sides were heard.
4. The points requiring settlement are the following.
i. Whether the impugned bills are justified?
ii. Any other relief, allowable
5. Complainant is a consumer of opposite parties for supply of potable water. As claimed by him he has been consuming 19 KL on an average and was remitting charges accordingly. He has produced Ext. A2 to establish this fact. But he felt aggrieved when Ext. A3 bill demanding him to pay Rs. 7,434/- was issued for the period between 24-09-2009 and 25-11-09. Obviously there is a quantum jump from the average consumption specified in Ext. A2 bill. Then they issued Ext. A4 bill dated 26-10-2010 demanding Rs. 5,734/-. On an overall perusal of the bill, it is clear that Ext. A4 bill covers the period from 25-11-2009 to 25-11-2010 as it is clearly stated therein. The previous reading as on 25-11-2009 is stated as 632 and present reading as on 25-11-2010 is specified as 929. The consumption over the period of one year is stated as 297 from 25-11-2009 to 25-11-2010. In that background, we are at a loss to appreciate the stand that the average consumption is 149. Obviously the average must be 149/12 = 12.4KL only, if we go by the Exht. A4 bill dated 26-10-2010. We are also surprised to find that where as the bill is dated 26-10-2010, it is based on reading as on 25-11-2010. To cap it all, it is stated therein that they are charging Rs. 5,734/- for the months from 12/2010 to 01/2010, what does it mean?. Undoubtedly, Exht. A4 bill leaves many things to be desired. We have no hesitation in quashing Ext. A4 bill as the statements recorded therein are wrong in may respects. The correct monthly average is only 12.4 KL. Now it is the question of validity of Ext. A3 bill that remains to be settled. On the face of it, it is quite unconvincing for a consumer in the domestic category to consume so much of water in two months to make him shell out whopping sum of Rs. 7,434/- for drinking water for two months. If he and his family had used that much of water, they would not have remained alive to file this complaint. In normal course of human conduct, one can not conceive of such a vast consumption. It has to be characterized as unusual and exceptional. This extravagant bill has to be examined in the light of the bill that followed, i.e. Ext. A4. We have seen that the said bill is full of errors and inconsistencies. If we look at Ext. A3 bill in the light of those errors and mistakes in Ext. A4 bill, it can be safely concluded that there is something fishy with Ext. A3 bill too. Therefore, that bill also must fall to ground and hence it is also quashed.
On an overall appreciation of the discussion and deliberations we have hitherto made, it is clear that the average consumption of the consumer is only 12.4KL per month. Therefore it is only just and fair, in our thinking, to issue fresh bill taking 12.4 KL as the monthly average consumption of the consumer. This will apply over the period from 24-09-2009 to 25-11-2010. Thereafter the bills shall be issued as per reading recorded in the meter. Whereas the meter is found hazzle free, it will be futile to once again check the meter. Moreover, the authorized official has tested it at the initiative of the complaint. We do not find it just to allowing other reliefs to the complainant.
In that view of the matter, the complaint stands allowed as follows:
(i) Exbts A3 and A4 bill stand quashed
(ii) The opposite parties shall issue a fresh bill over the period from 24-09-2009 to 25-11-2010 on the basis of monthly average consumption of 12.4 KL per month.
(iii) Opposite parties shall issue bills thereafter according to the readings recorded in the water meter.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of January 2012.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Exht. A1 : Power of attorney
A2 : Consumer bill dt. 23-11-2009
A3 : Consumer bill dt. 23-01-2010
A4 : Consumer bill dt. 26-10-2010
Opposite party’s exhibits
Exht. B1 : Copy of letter to the
assistant Engineer.
B2 : Test certificate dt. 05-03-2010
B3 : Copy of consumer personal
register of Water Authority.
Deposition :
PW1 : Rajesh G
