O R D E R

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II):

                   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 

                   2. The brief fact of this complaint is as follows:  The complainant is consumer No.TLD-3701 of the opposite party from 25.03.1999, the date on which a water connection was taken.  The complainant is a retired Govt. Employee.  The complainant is not a defaulter for water charges.  On the basis of the minimum charges the complainant had paid water charges in advance for every six months.  While so, the complainant received a bill from the opposite party as bi-monthly charge for an amount of Rs.217/- and additional charges of an amount of Rs.329/-.  The water charges bi-monthly for the water consumption on 01.02.2014 he got another bill stating the bi-monthly charges as Rs.294/- and additional charge as Rs.4,376/-.  On 06.03.2014 the complainant paid Rs.1,000/- as water charge.  Accordingly, when the complainant approached the opposite party for enquiring about the matter regarding the additional bills, but the opposite party did not give any satisfactory reply.  Thereafter also the complainant got another bill dated 26.04.2014 stating the monthly charge Rs.310/- and additional charge as Rs.3,684/- without furnishing the details of the bill amount.  On 26.04.2014, the complainant send a letter to the 2^nd opposite party about additional bills.  But the opposite party has not made any communication regarding the enhancement of the monthly charge or about the arrears till date on 24.11.2014 the complainant gave an application to the 2^nd opposite party for knowing the reason for additional bills as per RTI Act.  But the 2^nd opposite party’s response was not satisfactory.  The opposite party has no right to demand such a huge amount without any details and the opposite party did not care to furnish any details in spite of the reply notice sent by the complainant.  The above said act of the opposite party is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint for setting aside the bills issued by the opposite party along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost of this complaint.

                   3. In this case, opposite party filed their version with the following main contention.  According to the opposite party, the complainant’s meter reading as on 03.05.2012 was 693 and as on 04.12.2013 it was 1585, which means the complainant’s average monthly consumption was 46.7 kl. and the rate for the said consumption is Rs.345/- per month.  It is admitted that the complainant had paid the amount in advance.  He had paid only the minimum charges for using 23.1 kl. per month and the monthly charge was Rs.109/-.  But the complainant’s actual consumption per month was 46.7 kl. for which he had to pay Rs.345/- per month from May 2012 to December 2013.  So there is arrears and the complainant is liable to pay the said arrears.  Since bi-monthly billing system started in December 2013, i.e. the bills are issued to the complainant on 12/2013, 2/2014, 4/2014, 8/2014, 10/2014, 12/2014 & 2/2015.  So the contention of the complainant that he is bound only to pay Rs.109/- per month is baseless and he had a total arrears of Rs.4,376/- and the monthly charges subsequent thereof is also pending till February 2015.  Moreover, the opposite party have not demanded any interest for the arrears and the demand is only for actual charges.  The opposite party demanded only the actual amount, i.e. Rs.4,376/- if they demanded the amount with interest, the sum total would be Rs.17,776/- for 19 months (from May 2012 to December 2013).  The arrears of the complainant is legally entitled to the opposite party and the complainant is liable to pay the same also.  All these bills are prepared on the basis of the actual consumption and the complainant is liable to remit the bills as per the norms of the opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party cleared all the doubts of the complainant and gave a detailed reply about the application give under the RTI Act.  According to the opposite party, what all acts done by them are legal and as per the norms of the opposite party, hence there is no deficiency in service from their part.  With the above contentions, opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

                   4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only Point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                   5. The evidence of the complainant consists of the oral deposition of PW1, DW1 and Exhibits A1 to A5 and B1 and B2.  After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.

                   6. The Point:-  The complainant’s case is that he is a consumer of the opposite party and he had been paying the minimum charge as shown in the invoice card.  He had paid the amount in advance every six months.  He had no arrears till 02.12.2013.  The complainant’s allegation is that they were served a bill for Rs.217/- with additional charges of Rs.329/- on 02.12.2013.  Another bill on 01.02.2014 for Rs.294/- and additional charges was Rs.4,376/-.  According to the complainant, they have not consumed such quantity of water and as per the previous bills shows that their consumption is very low when compared to the present bills.  Therefore, on 26.04.2014 the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party for looking into the matter and for issuing a corrected bill.  Instead, opposite party issued another bill for an amount of Rs.310/- and additional charge of Rs.3,684/- on 01.04.2014.  The said bills are without any details and are illegal and the complainant is not liable to pay any amount as demanded by them and hence argued that the impugned bill is liable to be set aside. 

                   7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 5 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5.  Ext.A1 is the copy of the provisional invoice card dated 25.03.1999.  Ext.A2 is the copy of the letter dated 26.04.2014 issued to the 2^nd opposite party by the complainant.  Ext.A3 is the copy of the receipt dated 06.03.2014 for showing the payment of Rs.1,000/-.  Ext.A4 is the copy of the application dated 24.11.2014 issued to the 2^nd opposite party by the complainant under Right to Information Act.  Ext.A5 series is the copy of bills and additional bills dated 01.08.2014, 02.07.2014, 01.04.2014, 01.02.2014 and 02.12.2013 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant.  All bills except Ext.A5(b) bill showing the complainant’s meter reading.  All this bills are showing meter reading. 

                   8. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that the meter shown in the complainant’s water meter was taken on 12/2013, 02/2014, 04/2014, 06/2014, 08/2014, 10/2014, 12/2014 and 02/2015.  Based on the said readings, the complainant’s average monthly consumption is calculated as 46.78 kl./month as per the applicable tariff the monthly minimum charge of the complainant is Rs.345/- per month for his consumption of 46.78 kl./month.  Therefore, the complainant’s minimum charge is revised as Rs.345/-.  However, he had been paying only Rs.109/- because his previous consumption was only 23 kl./month he had paid the amount in advance.  So the previous consumption showed a credit balance.  He had paid up to 2013 December at that rate.  He has to pay Rs.345/- from January 2014 as his consumption is 46.7 kl./month.  So there is arrears of Rs.4,376/- and the complainant is liable to pay the same.  The demand for the same is legal and this complaint is filed by the complainant for avoiding the payment of the said arrears.  Since bi-monthly billing system started in December 2013.  The bills are issued to the consumer on 12/2013, 02/2014, 04/2014, 06/2014, 08/2014, 10/2014, 12/2014 and 02/2015.  The calculation of the bill amount is according to the usage of water consumption hence the complainant is liable to pay the arrears.  Thus the opposite party argued that they have not committed any deficiency in service any unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

                   9. In order to prove the case of the opposite party, the Asst. Executive Engineer of the opposite party filed a chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination.  On the basis of the chief affidavit, he was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B2.  Ext.B1 is the copy of the consumer personal ledger dated 27.03.1999. Ext.B2 is the data sheet of 03.05.2012 and 03.12.2013. 

                   10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and the opposite party had issued the bills to the complainant as per Ext.A5 series.  The question to be considered is whether Ext.A5 series bill is legally substantiable or not?  On a perusal of Ext.A5 series bill, it is seen that the opposite party has not furnished any details of the amount.  According to the complainant, opposite party has not taken the meter reading subsequent to 04.12.2013 the complainant’s monthly minimum charge Rs.217/- additional charge Rs.329/-.  On 03.02.2014 the complainant’s bi-monthly charge was Rs.294/- and additional charge Rs.4,376/-.  According to the complainant, the opposite party has not taken the meter reading on 03.02.2014.  In the circumstances, opposite party is not entitled to make any demand of arrears based on the arbitrary enhancement of the minimum charge giving in retrospective effect.  But the contention of the opposite party is that they have taken the meter reading on 04.12.2013, 03.02.2014, 02.04.2014, 03.06.2014 and 02.08.2014 and based on the said reading the complainant’s bi-monthly average consumption is found as 46.78 kl./month and the maximum charge for the said consumption is Rs.345/- per month.  Hence the complainant is liable to pay the said monthly charges with its arrears.  So the demand of arrears and the enhancement of monthly charge based on the actual consumption is not an illegal act.  But the opposite party has not adduced any evidence to show that they have taken the meter reading as claimed by them.  In these circumstances, we are continued to look in Ext.A5 series.  As per Ext.A5(d) bill dated 01.02.2014 the last reading was taken on 03.02.2014.  In Ext.A5(d) bill, the additional charge is for Rs.4,376/- and the same is disputed.  At the time of cross-examination, DW1 answered that he could not give any details with regard to Ext.A5(d) bill.  Exts.A2 and A4 are the complaints given by the complainant and the request under RTI Act.  But the opposite party did not give any detailed explanation on these request. 

                   11. In the absence of any cogent evidence from the side of the opposite party for proving the contentions of the opposite party and for disproving the contention of the complainant, we are constrained to accept the contentions of the complainant that the impugned bill is illegal & he is not liable to pay the said bill amount.  In the circumstances, in the issuance of Ext.A5(d) bill is found as illegal act of the opposite party and the above said act is found to be a deficiency in service.  Therefore, this complaint is allowable and the impugned bill is liable to be set aside. 

                   12. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby Ext.A5(d) additional charge dated 04.02.2014 is hereby set aside and the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/-  (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost to the complainant within 15 days.  If the opposite party fails to pay the amount in time the opposite party is directed to pay an interest of 10% till its realisation. 

                   13. However, the complainant is liable to pay the unpaid water charges if any (A5 series bills) for their actual consumption for which the opposite party is at liberty to issue a revised bill on the basis of the actual consumption of the complainant. 

                   Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of August, 2016.

                                                                                                 (Sd/-)

                                                                                          Sheela Jacob,             

                                                                                          (Member – II)

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President)    :  (Sd/-)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)                 :  (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Ninan P. Varghese

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Copy of the provisional invoice card dated 25.03.1999. 

A2 :  Copy of the letter dated 26.04.2014 issued to the 2^nd opposite party

        by the complainant. 

A3 :  Copy of the receipt dated 06.03.2014 for Rs.1,000/-. 

A4 :  Copy of the application dated 24.11.2014 issued to the 2^nd opposite party  

        by the complainant under RTI Act. 

A5 series :  Copy of bills and additional bills (5 in number) issued by the

                  opposite party to the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  A. Noushad

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 :  Copy of the consumer personal ledger dated 27.03.1999.

B2 :  Data sheet of 03.05.2012 and 03.12.2013.

                                                                                                (By Order)

Copy to:- (1)  Ninan. P. Varghese, Polachirackel House, Paliakara.P.O.,

                    Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.

2. Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Head Office,

         ‘Jalabhavan’, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram,

3.  Asst. Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority,

          P.H. Sub Division, Thiruvalla.

4. Asst. Engineer, Kerala Water Authority,

          Section Office, Thiruvalla.

5.  The Stock File.