BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 28^th day of February 2017

Filed on : 06-06-2015

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No.349/2015

Between

P.K. Mohanan, : Complainant

S/o. Karuppan, (By Adv. Jefrin Manuel)

Perekkulam Nandanam house,

No. X1/721D,

Manjummal-683 501,

Ernakulam.

And

Executive Engineer, : Opposite party

Kerala Water Authority,

Kalamassery Water Supply

Sub Division,

Kalamassery-683 104.

O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

1. The complainant's case.

2. The complainant is a senior citizen and is a consumer of the opposite party M/s. Kerala Water Authority with consumer No. L10/3089/D. The complainant had paid the entire bill up to December 2014. There are only 4 members in his house and the utility of the water is very less. On 18-12-2012 a new water meter was installed and the meter reading has been correctly been recorded. However, on 24-12-2014 the opposite party had issued with a water bill of Rs. 10,600/-. Thereafter, on 25-01-2014, 21-03-2014, 13-06-2014, 21-08-2014 and on 25-10-2014 bills were given at Rs. 118/-, 177/-, 1,280/-, and Rs. 40/- respectively. Even though, the bill dated 21-08-2014 for Rs. 1,280/- were much on the higher side. The complainant had paid the entire amount on 27-08-2014 and the meter reading was 229. The meter reader without considering the consumption during August and October such reading was adjusted to the month of December and escalated the bill at Rs. 10,600/-, on 24-12-2014. The complainant is not bound to pay the irrational bill supplied by the opposite party. The Complainant had given a written complaint to the opposite party on 29-01-2015 and again on 24-02-2015. However, no action was taken by the opposite party. To crown all, the opposite party had issued another bill for Rs. 17,848/- during April 2014 including the arrears of the disputed bill issued in December 2014. On 08-06-2015 the complainant was threatened with disconnection notice quite unauthorizedly and unmeritedly The complainant, therefore prayed for a direction to the opposite party not to disconnect the water connection until a proper bill is issued on consideration of the available meter reading.

1. 1. 3. Notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party accepted the notice, appeared and filed a version resisting the complaint.

      4. The averments in the complaint are not fully correct. The meter reading of the complainant as on 27-08-2014 was 329 kl. and the monthly consumption was increased to 60 kl from 09-07-2014. Hence the bill was issued for Rs. 1,077/- and that amount was paid by complainant. Subsequently, on 25-10-2014 the monthly consumption was reduced to 500 lt. and therefore only minimum charge was collected from the complainant. On 26-12-2014 the meter reading was 697 kl and the monthly consumption was increased to 183.5kl. Therefore the bill for Rs. 12,084/- was issued, the complainant was liable to remit the amount. The bill for Rs. 17,848/- was inclusive of water charge till March 2015. Since the gate was locked no meter reading could be taken on 24-04-2015, therefore the bill was issued on the basis of monthly average. Taking the long average of the said reading an amount of Rs. 6,688/- was reduced from the dues. The bills are issued in accordance with the Kerala Water Supply Regulation 1991. Hence the complainant is liable to remit the amount as per the bill. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

1. 1. 5. When the matter came up for evidence the complainant got himself examined as PW1 and Exbts. A1 to A7 were marked. On the side of the opposite party no oral evidence was adduced but Exbt. B1 document was marked.

      6. The following issues were settled for consideration.

i.Whether the complainant has proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

ii. Reliefs and costs

1. 1. 5. Issue No. i. The main contention of the complainant in the complaint was that the opposite party had miscalculated the meter reading to arrive at a higher water bill. However, when he got examined as PW1, during cross-examination the complainant had a case that he was no liability to make the payment as per the meter reading. He contended that there was a challenge against the genuineness of the meter reading. The complainant is not seen to have got the faulty meter replaced through the opposite party as per the Water Supply Regulations. Therefore, we find that the complainant is not entitled to challenge the liability of the water bills issued to him by the opposite party. The issue is found against the complainant.

1. 1. 5. Issue No. ii. Having found issue No. 1 against the complainant we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28^th day of February 2017

Sd/-

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

Sd/-

Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-

Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Exbt. A1 : Receipt dt. 13-06-2014

A2 : Receipt dt. 21-08-2014

A3 : Receipt dt. 25-10-2014

A4 : Demand and disconnection notice

dt. 24-12-2014

A5 : Demand and Disconnection notice

dt. 25-04-2015

A6 : Letter dt. 29-01-2015

A7 : Copy of letter dt. 24-02-2015

Opposite party's Exhibits:

Exbt. B1 : Consumer details

Depositions:

P.W1 : P.K. Mohanan

Copy of order despatched on :

By Post: By hand: