Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):
The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.
2. The case of the complainant is briefly stated as follows: The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and he is having Consumer No.1212/D M. Mathew, Muthoot House, Kozhencherry. According to the complainant, the opposite party has not been issued any bill for the water charge from 2010 or 2011. The opposite party only demanded Rs. 10,000 orally as water charges. As a result of a threat of disconnection the complainant forced to pay an amount of Rs.22,586 to opposite party on 02.01.2014. On 05.01.2015 the opposite party issued a bill for an amount of Rs. 44,891 with an endorsement “the meter is not working”. Apart from this notice on 09.01.2015 opposite party issued a notice stating that, the water meter is not working and it has to be changed. On 12.02.2015 again the complainant filed a representation to the opposite party and as a result of this representation a mini adalath was taken place on 24.02.2015. Again on 19.03.2015 another adalath was also proposed. The complainant stated that, the issuance of the bill dated 09.01.2015 for an amount of Rs. 44,891 is against the violation of law. The opposite party already admitted that, the water meter was not functioning properly but illegally bills were served. Aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the complainant filed this petition before this Forum for the cancellation of the bill dated 05.01.2015 and report dated 09.01.2015 and for some other relief. This Forum entertains the complaint and issue notice to opposite party, the opposite party entered appearance and filed their version as follows:
3. According to the opposite party, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The remitted amount of Rs.22,586 is the 50% of the total amount due to water authority up to 12/2013 and the total arrear was Rs. 45,172. The water connection of the complainant was restored due to the 50% payment as stated above. The matter referred to Revenue adalath of 02/2015 and instalment was allowed in that adalath. According to this opposite party though instalment was allowed the complainant did not pay any amount as per the adalath decision. At last on 09.01.2015 a notice was issued to the petitioner to pay the arrear amount of Rs. 44891. This bill amount is including the all arrears and water charge, surcharge and fine. On the basis of this bill the complainant average consumption of water is 83 KL per month and for that a bill amount of Rs.22,583 has to be calculated. This opposite party again submitted that there was no deficiency in service on their part and hence the complaint has to be dismissed with cost to opposite party.
4. On the basis of the above pleading of both the parties and after perusal of the records before the Forum we raised the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
- Whether the opposite parties calculation of bill amount is
erroneous or not?
- Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency
in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Regarding the relief and cost?
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and examined him as PW1. Though this PW1 marked Ext.A1 to Ext. A4. Ext.A1 is the copy of judgment in O.P.No.71/2004 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram, Ext.A2 is Demand and disconnection notice dated 05.01.2015 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A3 is the notice dated 09.01.2015 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A4 is the reply letter dated 12.02.2015 sent by the complainant to the opposite party. On the other hand, the opposite party is examined as DW1. No exhibit is marked on their side. Proof affidavit of PW1 is more or less as per the tune of the complaint. He is deposed that, no bill for water charges were issued or served for the year 2010-2011 and the opposite party orally demanded Rs.10,000 as bill amount. He again deposed that, as a threat of disconnection he paid an amount of Rs.22,586 to the opposite party. He is also challenging the bill amount for Rs.44,891 dated 05.01.2015. On the other hand, the Asst. Executive Engineer was examined as DW1 in this case he who deposed that, the payment of Rs. 22,586 as stated earlier was a symptom of acceptance of bill amount for Rs. 45,172. The bill dated 05.01.2015 of Rs.44,891 includes the arrear of above 50% of bill ie, Rs. 22,586 and water charge from 01/2014 to 12/2014. He deposed that, the actual water charge for 01/2014 to 04/2014 is Rs. 4,868/-. The water usage is 83 KL per month and its charge is Rs. 1,217. Hence 1217 x 4 months is Rs. 4,868 . This DW1 categorically deposed that on 17.05.2014 the water meter became defective and defects of the water meter was informed to the complainant on 17.05.2014 and 19.11.2014. But the complainant did not consider the notice of the opposite party and only on 29.07.2015 the water meter was replaced. According to DW1, the final bill includes a fine of Rs. 270, surcharge for the faulty period Rs. 7431, old arrears Rs. 22,586 and Rs. 4,868. Hence the bill amount comes to Rs. 44,891.
6. Point No.1:- The opposite party raised a contention to the effect that, the suit is not maintainable before this Forum. It is comes out in evidence that, the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and the opposite party is a service provider. The complainant in this case established that, the issuance of water bill is against the prevailing law and it is erroneous also. He has a grievance which has to be redressed. Hence point No.1 found in favour of the complainant.
7. Point No. 2 to 4:- For the sake of convenience we would like to consider point No.2 to 4 together. It is come out in evidence that, the opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 45,172 on 18.12.2013 and the complainant remitted 50% of the bill amount i.e., Rs. 22,586 to the opposite party. It is true that, the complainant has a definite case to the effect that, the water consumption of the house is so low and the meter reading assessed by the opposite party is so erroneous and not based on actual reading. When we peruse the evidence before us it is to see that there is no evidence to come to a conclusion that, the meter was faulty on or before 18.12.2013. It is clear from proof affidavit of complainant that he paid Rs 5000/- on 17/12/2011 for the water charge from 07/2010 to 12/2011. It means that up to 31.12.2011 there was no dispute between the parties with regard to the payment of water bill. At this juncture, we have to consider the bill amount from 1/ 2012 to 12/ 2013. Hence we can arrive a conclusion that the bill amount for Rs. 45,172 dated 18.12.2013 is for 24 months. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to discard the bill amount for Rs. 45,172 dated 18.12.2013 i.e., the water charge up to December 2013. Considering the above facts and circumstances and available evidence on records, we would like to find that the bill issued for an amount of Rs. 45,172/- dated 18.12.2013 was in order and there is no need to interfere in it or to be cancelled. Then the next question to be considered is whether the final bill for Rs. 44,891/- served on 05.01.2015 was erroneous or not. As per Ext.A2 bill for an amount of Rs. 44,891/- dated 05.01.2015 the meter reading was 5990 and the reading was taken on 09.01.2015 i.e., after 4 days of the preparation of the bill dated 05.01.2015. On that date in remark column it is stated that “not working”. Then we have to inferred that, the water meter of the complainant was not working on 09.01.2015. But at the same time when we examine the proof affidavit of DW1 he deposed that, on 17.05.2014 the meter was became defective and on 17.05.2014 and on 19.11.2014 the opposite party inform the complainant with regard to the defectiveness of the water meter. Though the opposite party deposed in his chief affidavit with regard to the information to the complainant no evidence on records produced to substantiate their case. Moreover, at the time of filing version before the Forum the opposite party has not even murmured with regard to the defectiveness of the water meter. When we peruse the complaint and chief affidavit of the complainant it reveals that the complainant has no case with regard to the defect of the meter except the reference in Ext.A2 bill. Hence it is clear that, even the complainant has no case to the effect that, his water meter was not functioning at the time of issuance of Ext.A2. It is an admitted case that, the water meter of the complainant was replaced at the pendency of the case and it is replaced with the knowledge of this Forum and both the parties are binding for the said installation. Even according to the opposite party it is admitted that, the water meter is replaced on 29.07.2015. For this purpose on 15.07.2015 the complainant filed a petition before the Forum and after hearing both sides the Forum allowed the complainant to install a new water meter. On the basis of the Ext.A2 bill dated 05.01.2015 we can easily come to a conclusion that at the time of issuing the bill i.e., on 09.01.2015 the water meter of the complainant was not working. So we can inferred that, the calculation of Ext.A2 bill was also not correct and it is prepared against proper water reading. On the basis of the above stated discussion with regard to the faultiness of water meter we are not in a position to arrive a conclusion that on which date the water meter became defective and on that date what was the actual water meter reading. In this aspect either the complainant or the opposite party fail to give any explanation before us. As per the Ext.A3 dated 09.01.2015 it is also proved that, the water meter of the complainant was not functioning. In that notice it is to see that the opposite party directed the complainant to replace the water meter with the consent of the opposite parties. Ext.A4 is the legal notice issued to the opposite party by the complainant. This notice is also contains more or less the same contention raised by the complaint in his complaint and proof affidavit. When we already find that, Ext.A2 bill is not properly prepared and against the basic principles and it is also against the provisions of Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulation Act 1991.
8. It is true that, the complainant filed this case to set aside Ext.A2 bill dated 05.01.2015. On the basis of the available evidence on records we can safely come to a conclusion that, the opposite party prepared the Ext.A2 bill while the meter was in a defective condition. If it be so, we have to think that what are the remedies available to the complaint in this case. When we refer KWA (Water Supply) Regulations, 1991 it reads as follows: 12(e) “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”. 17(a) “If the owner or occupier of the premises entertains doubts about the accuracy of the meter installed at his premises may apply in Form No.RA.3 to the Assistant Executive Engineer or any person authorised by him, to have the meter tested. A meter testing fee of Rs.10/- shall be paid along with the application.” 17(b) “On receipt of the application and fee the Assistant Executive Engineer shall arrange to get the meter tested. If on testing, it is found that the quantity registered by the meter differs from the actual quantity by plus or minus 10 percent or more the Assistant Executive Engineer shall direct the consumer to get the meter repaired or replaced. The cost of such repair or replacement shall be born by the owner or occupier.17(d) If an examination, any meter is found to be out of order and not recording 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 corresponding correction 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 demand 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.” It is evident to see that, the water meter of the complainant is replaced on 29.07.2015 and the said installation is also within the knowledge of the opposite party. As far as the relevant provisions of Kerala Water Authority Regulations are concerned it is to see that, if a water meter is became faulty it is the duty of the owner of occupier of the premises to purchase a new water meter and install in the presence of the officer of the water authorities concerned. In this case we already found that, the bill issued on 18.12.2013 for an amount of Rs. 45,172 for a period of July 2010 to December 2013 was in order. The quantity of the water used as per Ext.A2 bill can be calculated as per Section 17(a) and (d) of Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations Act 1991. The Assistant Executive Engineer is the authority concerned to correct the defect in the meter reading and he has to be issued a fresh bill as per Section 17 (d) to the Consumer. It is to see that, the opposite party is not taken any steps to act as per Section 17 (a) or (d) of Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations Act 1991 it amounts to a deficiency in service on their part. The complainant has a right to opt Section 17(a) and (d) of the said Act for redressing his grievances. On the basis of the above discussion we find that, Ext.A2 bill has to be corrected as per the relevant provisions of Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations Act. As per I.A No. 20/2015 this Forum issued an Interim Injunction Order against the opposite party under Section 13(3-B) of Consumer Protection Act from disconnecting water connection of the complainant until 24.03.2015 and subsequently the said order is modified till the disposal of the case. The said order is made absolute if the complainant comply the order referred No.2 in the relief portion of this Order within the stipulated time. Hence we found point No. 2 to 4 accordingly.
9. In the result we passed the following orders:
- The opposite party is directed to correct the bill amount in Ext.A2 as per the provisions of Section 17(a) and (d) of Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations Act 1991.
- The complainant is directed to pay Rs.22,586 (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Five hundred and eighty six only) i.e., the remaining 50% of the bill amount dated 18.12.2013 of Rs. 45,172 within one month of the date of receipt of this order. The opposite party is at liberty to impose simple interest to that amount as per the latest prevailing laws and regulations of Reserve Bank of India.
- Considering the nature and circumstances of this case, there is no order for cost and compensation.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of February, 2016.
(Sd/-)
P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I) : (Sd/-)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : M. Mathew
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of judgment in O.P.No.71/2004 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram.
A2 : Demand and disconnection notice dated 05.01.2015 issued by the
opposite party to the complainant.
A3 : Notice dated 09.01.2015 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
A4 : Reply letter dated 12.02.2015 sent by the complainant to the opposite party
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 : Dileep Gopal
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) M. Mathew, Muthoot House, Kozhencherry.
(2) Asst. Exe. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority,
Pathanamthitta Section.
(3) The Stock File.
