IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 09th day of December, 2019
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
C C No. 273/2017 (filed on 16/12/2017)
Petitioner : Mary Philip,
W/o. M.T. Philip,
Thaiparambil House,
S.H. Mount P.O.
Kottayam – 686006.
(Adv. Mathew Philip)
Vs.
Opposite Party : 1) Kerala Water Authority,
Rep. by Asst. Executive Engineer,
P.H. Sub Division,
Kottayam – 686 002.
2) Asst. Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority,
Kottayam – 686 002.
(For Op1 and 2, Adv. K.M. George)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The case of the complainant is as follows.
The complainant is the wife of late Mathew Philp. The said Mathew Philip filed a domestic water connection to his house from the opposite parties wide consumer No. KLD 113 D. The complainant is alone in her house. The house of the complainant situates at Vellappally mount and due to the higher altitude of the place, there is no water supply in the summer months March to May. Therefore she has increased the depth of her well which was mainly depending by her for water for the said months. The consumption of the water in the year 2013-14 was in the range of 20-28 KL per month. The water meter was found dead and it was replaced by her on 10/06/2014. The consumption was in the same level even after the replacement of water meter. There was a spurt in consumption from January 2015 onwards. In January, the consumption was found 137 KL and the meter reader noted in the bill that this is because of air release. The consumption rose to the abnormal and absurd levels in later period. Then on 08/05/15, the complainant filed a petition before the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kottayam and the opposite parties failed to attend it. As the respondent could not take any action, the complainant stopped the payment of bills. Evenafter the water meter reader noticed that the meter was defective and the opposite parties issued bill for exorbitant amount without rectifying the defects of the water meter. An Officer of the Water authority along with the meter reader visited the complainant’s premises and suggested that some water leakage might have happened in the complainant’s premises. The petitioner could not observe any leak so far. On 07/12/17, she received a demand notice for Rs.2,05,531/- with a direction to pay the same on or before 18/12/2017 at a risk of disconnection. The said bill has no connection with her actual consumption. The complainant is ready and willing to pay the average water charge before the spurt. The above said act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.
Upon notice from this Forum, opposite parties 1and 2 appeared before the Forum and the 1st opposite party filed the version for on and behalf of the 2nd opposite party.
The crux of the version is as follows.
The opposite parties admitted that the consumer no. KLD 113D is in the name of M.T. Philip and the connection was given on 09/01/1987. The averments in the complaint that the complainant is mainly depending on the well water and the consumption of the complainant in the year 2013-14 was in the range of 20-28 Kl per month is not true. The consumption of the water is very high. The water connection was given to a double storey building having a large plinth area. The water meter was replaced with a new meter on 10/06/2014. Evenafter the replacement, the old meter with a new meter there is no considerable change in the meter reading. The complainant had already installed an air valve before the meter point to release the air. The petition of the complainant was considered and the water meter reading of the complainant was regularly taken. The monthly water charge of the complainant is fixed based on the water meter readings. The consumer is bound to replace the water meter after receiving the notice from the meter reader. Kerala Water Authorities on suspicions of hidden leakage of water in the premises, direct the complainant to check the inside pipeline of the complainant. But the complainant was reluctant to do the same. The last remittance of water charge was on 28/08/2014. The arrear bill is based on the water meter reading and the complainant is bound to pay the arrears. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the opposite parties.
The complainant is examined as pw1 and Ext.A1to A3 were marked. The Assistant Executive Engineer filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.B1 was marked.
On the evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record, we would like to frame the following points for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?
- Relief and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.
Point No.1 and 2
There is no dispute that on 09/01/1987 Mathew Philip who is the husband of the complainant availed a domestic water connection to his house from the opposite parties vide consumer No. KLD 113D. It is further admitted by the parties that the water meter was found dead in the month of May 2014 and it was replaced by Pw1 on 10/06/2014. There was an abnormal increase in the consumption of water by Pw1 from January 2015 onwards. Then the complainant had filed a petition before the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kottayam and receipt dtd.08/08/2015 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kottayam is marked as Ext.A1. The 2nd opposite party issued A2 bill to the complainant on 07/12/2017. It is stated in the Ext.A2 that the meter reading status was 6393 KL. The complainant produced the water bills for the period of 12/08/2013 to 18/05/2017 and marked as Ext.A3 series. On perusal of Ext.A3 series bills, we can see that there are endorcements in several bills by the water meter reader are as “meter faulty, the bill is not marked and the meter is rotating due to the air pressure”. On perusal of Ext.A3 series bills we can see that all these endorcements are made on the bills issued from 05/01/2015 and onwards.
Clause 17 (d) of the Water Supply Regulation reads as follows.
If on examination, any meter is found to be out of order and not registering correctly, the consumption dating from the reading previous to the last reading, till the repair, or replacement of the meter be calculated at the average consumption registered for any previous period during which in the opinion of the Assistant Executive Engineer the meter installed at the premises was registering correctly and the consumption of water was not abnormal. The Assistant Executive Engineer shall arrange to correct the bill and also slab card with curresponding corrections in the ledger sheets, accordingly. If the owner or occupier of the premises has any objection regarding the rate of consumption of water fixed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, he has a right to prefer an appeal to the Executive Engineer within 20 days of the date of receipt of the bill prepared as above. The consumer shall deposit 50% of the demanded amount before filing the appeal. This shall be adjusted in future water charges, if the water charges so paid are found to be in excess. Such appeals shall be in writing and accompanied by a fee of Rs,5.00. In all such cases the decision of the Executive Engineer shall be final.
Ext.A1 proves that the complainant had lodged an application related to the water connection on 08/05/2015. Though the opposite party deposed that the necessary action was taken in receipt of the application of the complainant, they did not adduce any evidence to prove the same. Moreover the opposite parties contented that the complainant is bound to replace the meter when it was reported as faulty by the meter reader. Clause 12 (e) of the Water Supply Regulation reads as follows.
“It shall be the responsibility of the owner or occupier of the premises to keep the meter, meter box and its surrounding clean and easily accessible for taking meter readings, inspection and servicing by the Assistant Executive Engineer or any one authorized by him to do so. The responsibility for the safe custody and sound condition of the meter shall also vest with the consumer. When a meter provided by the owner / occupier of the premises, goes out of order, the same shall, within 30 days of report of the damage by the Assistant Executive Engineer, be repaired or replaced by the owner or occupier of the premises at his own cost. In case of default a surcharge at the rate of 25% on the monthly water charges, as fixed in accordance with clause (b) of regulation 13, for the first month after the expiry of the period of notice, 50% for the next 2 months and 100% beyond that period shall also be levied. In case of continued default the Assistant Executive Engineer shall have the power to disconnect the water supply to the premises without further notice. The owner or occupier of the premises shall also inform the Assistant Executive Engineer as soon as any defect is noticed in the meter or its recording”.
Thus as per clause 12 (e) of Water Supply Regulation, the owner or occupier or owner of the premises are bound to repair or replace the water meter within 30 days from the receipt of the report from the Assistant Executive Engineer that the water meter was defective. In the case in hand, the opposite party has not adduced any evidence to prove that they issued any report as the meter was out of order to the complainant in compliance with the Section 12 (E) of the Water Supply Regulation Act.
The consumer personal ledger of the complainant is produced by opposite party and marked as Ext.B1. On perusal of Ext.B1 we can see that there is a considerable hike in the bimonthly consumption of water after 17/01/2014 than the bimonthly consumption till that date.
As per clause 17 (d) of Water Supply Regulation, the Assistant Executive Engineer is bound to issue the bill calculating the average consumption of the previous period in which the meter was recorded correctly, when the meter was faulty or not recording the correct reading. In this case, though meter reader endorsed on the bill that the meter was faulty and not recording correctly on various reasons the opposite party issued the Ext.A2 bill in accordance with the Ext.A3 bills ie. in contravention to the provisions of the Clause 17 (d) of the Water Supply Regulations.
Therefore, we are in the opinion that issuance of Ext.A2 bill in contrary to the law would amount of deficiency in service. It is undisputed fact that the complainant had consumed water and she did not pay the water bills from 28/10/2014 onwards. The complainant 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 dtd.07/12/2017 and the opposite party is directed to issue a fresh water bill in accordance with the law without levying any penal charges.
- Considering the nature of the litigation no cost and compensation is allowed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,
corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 09th day of December, 2019.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness examined from the side of complainant
Pw1 : Mary Philip
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 : Receipt dtd. 08/05/2015 issued by opposite party
A2 : Notice dtd.07/12/17 issued by opposite party
A3 : Series of bills issued by opposite party (21 nos.)
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
B1 : Consumer personal ledger
By Order
Senior Superintendent
