PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of June 2012
Filed on : 25/11/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 661/2011
Between
Sashidharan P.S., : Complainant
Sudarsanan, (By Adv. Sebin Thomas,
Mampilly Enclave, Nagaraj Associates, Off. 4th floor
XIII/291-A, Thripunithura. Empire building, High Court of
Kerala, Ernakulam, Kochi-18)
And
1. Kerala Water Authority, : Opposite parties
Office of the Executive Engineer, (By Adv. Jeemon John)
Water Works Sub Division, MDV complex,Opp.LF
Kochi-682 016. Hospital, Angamaly)
Rep. by Executive Engineer.
2. Office of Assistant Executive
Engineer, Kerala Water Authority,
Water Section, Subdivision-1,
Tripunithura-682 301.
rep. by Assistant Executive Engineer.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
In 2010 the complainant availed a water connection from the opposite parties under domestic category bearing Consumer No. TPR 10244/10. Over the past few months the complainant has received erroneous bills for his water connection. On 11-02-2011 the complainant caused a letter to the 2nd opposite party regarding the bill dated 29-12-2010 and also requested to verify the functioning of the water meter. In response to the letter the 2nd opposite party intimated the complainant that the meter had been found to be in proper working condition. In the subsequent bill also the same issue of erroneous billing occurred and the total amount charged came up to Rs. 39,710/- The complainant again approached the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party stated that it had been an error on their part and promised that the entire disputes could be settled by a payment of Rs. 10,000/- to which the complainant agreed and paid the amount. But subsequently the 2nd opposite party issued a bill dated 23-08-2011 after deducting the remitted amount. On 05-11-2011 the 2nd opposite party issued a bill to the tune of Rs. 26,245/- which is totally unacceptable. So the complainant is before us with the following reliefs.
i. To get the impugned bills set aside and issue revised bill with regard to the previous months.
ii. To direct the opposite parties to reimburse Rs. 10,000/- the amount already remitted.
iii. To pay Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of these proceedings respectively.
2. The version of the opposite parties.
The arrear bills were issued on the basis of the water meter reading. On receipt of the bill for the period from December 2010 to January 2011 to the tune of Rs. 19,850/- the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party and as requested by the complainant the status of meter was checked and found correct. Considering the request of the complainant he was allowed to remit the arrear amount in instalments and he remitted Rs. 10,000/- on 04-08-2011. The complainant is liable to remit the water charges as per the arrear bill.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1, and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Exts. B1 was marked on their side. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the impugned
arrear bills set aside
ii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to refund Rs. 10,000/-
to the complainant the amount remitted by him.
iii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and
costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties.
5. Point No. i&ii.. During the proceedings at the instance of the complainant vide order in I.A. No. 716/2011 dated 28-11-2011 this Forum directed the opposite parties to refrain from taking any further action in the disputed bills and from disconnecting the water connection of the complainant; till disposal of the complaint. The opposite parties duly honoured the order.
6. The learned counsel from the complainant vehemently and vigorously contended that the 2nd opposite party failed to mention previous reading or present reading in the impugned bill for the period from 03-06-2010 to 11-10-2010. According to him that itself constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and to substantiate the same the counsel relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Y.N. Gupta v. Delhi Electric Supply on 16th November 1992.
7. On the contrary the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the bill in question was issued on the basis of the water meter reading and Ext. A4 the test report of the water meter goes to show that the same has been working properly and therefore the complainant is to pay the amounts as per the bills issued to him.
8. Ext. B1 is the copy of the consumer ledger maintained by the opposite party. The consumption of water by the complainant as per Ext. B1 reads as follows:
Reading Date | Meter reading |
04-06-2010 | 1 |
23-07-2010 | 463 |
23-09-2010 | 850 |
19-11-2010 | 1148 |
20-01-2011 | 1231 |
20-03-2011 | 1365 |
23-07-2011 | 43 |
19-09-2011 | 1571 |
9. Prima-facie there is discrepancies in the calculations made by the opposite parties in Exts. A5,6 and A7 bills. The 2nd opposite party did not mount the box to explain the anomaly in the water meter reading as well as in the arrear bills. In the above circumstances we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned bill have to be set aside. It is to be noted that the complainant has not raised objection against the readings in Ext. B1 till 20-03-2011. To set things right we think that we have to direct the opposite parties to invoke the provisions of the Regulation 13 of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulation 1991 by taking the average retrospectively from 20-03-2011 and issue the bill for the disputed period that is from 26-02-2011 till date. The complainant during examination deposed that since he has erected an air valve the present reading is based on his actual consumption. It is made clear that the opposite party is to issue bill in future on the basis of the readings in the water meter alone.
7. Point No.iii. Since the grievances of the complainant having been sufficiently met we do not see any reason to award compensation and costs of the proceedings.
8. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and pass the following order.
i. The order in I.A. No. 716/2011 dated 28-11-2011 is made absolute.
ii. We set aside the impugned bill
iii.The opposite parties shall issue a fresh bill on the basis of
consumption of water in Ext. B1 retrospectively for 6 months
from 20-03-2011 for the period from 26-02-2011 till date as
per Regulation 13 of Kerala Water Authority Regulation
1991. (Water Supply).
iv. The opposite party shall adjust the remittances made by the
complainant at the earliest.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of June 2012.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of consumer
bill dt.13/10/2010
A2 : “ dt.09/12/2010
A3 : Copy of letter dt.11-02-2011
A4 : copy of test certificate
dt. 25-04-2011
A5 : Copy of consumer bill
dt. 27-08-2011
A6 : Consumer bill dt. 23/08/2011
A7 : Consumer bill
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Copy of consumer ledger.
Depositions:
PW1 : P.S. Sasidhdaran
