IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 13thday of August, 2021.
Filed on 22-12-2020
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.331/2020
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri.K.S Gopalakrishnan Kerala Water Authority
S/o Sankarankutty Nair P.H Division
Kannamangalam House Alappuzha
Thiruvampady, Alappuzha Rep. by its Executive Engineer
(Adv.Sri.Joseph Mathew)
O R D E R
C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
Brief facts of complainant’s case is as follows:-
The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party having consumer number AWS/5437/D. The complainant’s family consists of him and his wife only. The complainant was remitting the water charge till the end of 2019. On 25.11.19 the opposite party had issued a water charge bill in which it is stated that the bimonthly consumption is 39 KL and the meter is not reading and it has to be replaced. The bill on 21.01.2020 stating bimonthly consumption is 76 KL of water. In view of the above the complainant is bound to pay only the minimum charge. But they had billed Rs.912/-. On 25.05.2020 the opposite party had issued another bill stating bimonthly consumption as 76 KL of water and billed Rs.3938/- stating Rs.912/- as arrears and Rs.3026/- as additional fee. According to the complainant he is not bound to pay that much of arrears and additional fee. Further on 25.05.2020 and 21.07.2020 the opposite party had issued a bill and had charged surcharge along with arrears. Complainant further stating that he is not bound to pay that much of arrears and additional fee and bound to pay only the minimum fee. Again on 26.09.2020 the opposite party had issued bill and had charged Rs.912/- towards surcharge and Rs.5776/- as arrears. The total of it is Rs.7614. The complainant having only one tap in his house and using water only for cooking. For all other purposes he is depending the water from the well. On 07.07.18 the opposite party had issued a notice to the complainant stating the meter is not working and the complainant replaced the old one. Even then after one year of that, the opposite party is consecutively stating in the bill that the meter is not working. In the bill dated 25.09.2020 they had remarked that the meter is to be replaced urgently. On 27.11.2020 the opposite party had issued disconnection notice. On receipt of it the complainant had filed a submission to the opposite party on 27.09.2020 stating the facts and to avoid disconnection. The opposite party had forwarded it to his subordinates to examine the case and report to him. Consequent to that his subordinates had examined the meter and reported that there is some dirt had clusted inside the meter wheels and on removal of it, it is working perfectly. It is evident that the meter is well and good and does not require any replacement. Further the collection of dirt came through the water is not the fault of the complainant. Hence the complainant is not liable to pay any surcharge or fine or advance or additional fee and he is liable to pay water charges of the water consumed from November 2019 to till date. More over it is evident from the bills issued by the opposite party that the bimonthly consumption is only 76 KL water. Hence the complainant approaches this Commission for following reliefs:
- To direct the opposite party to cancel the surcharge, fine or advance from 25-11-19 to till date
- To direct the opposite party to charge only the bimonthly consumption of 76 KL of water from 25-11-19 to till date and cost of the proceedings.
- Version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party since the alleged water connection is still in the name of one Sri.Sankarankutty Nair.The complainant did not take any steps to transfer the ownership in his name.the complainant lastly remitted the water charges on 30.08.2019.On 25.11.19 the meter reader found there is no change in the meter reading and it remains constant as that of the previous meter reading.This is due to the fault of meter and direct the complainant to replace the faulty meter on 20.11.2019.Thus issued arrear bills on the basis of average of the previous bimonthly consumption of water and arrived 38 KL water consumption per month.The bills included arrear of water charges, surcharge and fine.All bills are issued in accordance with the water consumption by the complainant.Hence the complainant is liable to pay entire amount as per the bills such as bill dtd 21.01.2020, 25.05.2020, 21.07.2020 and 25.09.2020 respectively.The complainant either replace the faulty meter or remit the water charges till date.Therefore disconnection advice given to the complainant on 27.11.2020)
-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. Reliefs and costs?
Evidence on the side of the complainant gave oral evidence as PW1 Ext.A1 to A4 documents were marked in which Ext.A2 are in series.The opposite party was adduced oral as well as documentary evidence Ext.B1 marked on their side.Heardboth sides.
Point No. 1 and 2
Ext.A1 is the Provisional Invoice Card (PIC) of the alleged water connection.The grievance of the complainant is that Ext.A2 series bills for the period from 25.11.19 to 25.11.2020 issued by opposite party, water authority are illegal.But he is ready to pay the water charges of bimonthly consumption of 76 KL water from 25.11.2019 to till date.The complainant alleged that once he had replaced the water meter as directed by the opposite party on 07.07.2018.Therefore, there is no possibility to cause any fault within a short span of time.He convinced about it to the opposite party through Ext.A3.According to the complainant Ext.A4, disconnection notice issued by opposite party is illegal and not binding to him.
It is contented by the opposite party that the complainant did not take any steps to transfer the ownership of water connection in his name.Further, the meter reader reported the meter reading remains constant as that of the previous reading.This is due to the fault of water meter and directed the complainant to replace the same.Ext.B1 is the copy of ledger including details of reading, water charge etc.
On perusal of Ext.A1 PIC it seems that the water connection is still in the name of Sri. Sankarankutty Nair, who is none other than the father of the complainant.It seems that the complainant being the beneficiary can be treated as a consumer within the scope of Consumer Protection Act.Regulation 13 of water supply regulations stipulated the procedure to be adopted in the matter of assessment of water charges.As per Regulation 13 (b), the Authority may also fix the monthly rate of water charges of a consumer based on his average consumption of water for any previous six months in the case of existing connections.In view of the said provision opposite party calculated the average consumption of water on previous six months, ie, before 25.11.19, that the day the meter found faulty.Accordingly issued Ext.A2 series bills.During the course of argument the learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that Ext.A2 series are fabricated bills as the bill date shown before the date of inspection.On perusal of Ext.A2 series the bill dated 20-11-2019 the reading date shown is 25.11.2019 the same way adopted in other bills such are the bill dtd. 21.01.2020 reading collected on 24.01.2020, the bill dtd.25.05.2020 is on 27.07.2020 and bill dtd. 25.09.2020 is 28.09.2020 respectively.Admittedly Ext.A2 series bill were issued by the opposite party but they have not made any explanation regarding those anomalies in Ext.A2 series bills.Further it is revealed from the endorsement in Ext.A3 by Assistant Executive Engineer “please examine the case and replied to him as per documents” that he directed the concerned employee to examine the water meter in the premises of the complainant.But opposite party has suppressed that report before the Commission to substantiate their contention that the meter is not in a working condition.So non production of that report itself probablise the case of the complainant that he had replaced the water meter as directed by the opposite party on 07.07.2018.Hence there is no possibility that the meter became faulty within the short span of time.In the absence of convincing evidence from the opposite party, we have no hesitation to hold that Ext.A2 bill are not genuine and those are created by opposite party without any basis.It is the bounden duty of the opposite party to substantiate their contention with sufficient evidence.Here there is no evidence from the side of the opposite party to show that Ext.A2 are genuine.So Ext.A2 series bill are found fabricated however, the complainant himself is admitted he is ready to pay the bill amount for the bimonthly consumption of 76 KL water.Therefore, the entire A2 series bills are not set aside but the surcharge, fine or advance demanded by the opposite party is hereby stands set aside.In view of the above we are not ordering any cost.
In the result the complaint is allowed and the complainant is directed to pay the arrears of water charges of each bills to the opposite party.In that event opposite party is directed to issue fresh bill accordingly to the complainant.Both parties shall bear their respective cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 13th day of August, 2021.
Sd/-Smt.C.K Lekhamma (Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sri.K.S Gopalakrishnan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Provisional Invoice Card
Ext.A2 Series - Demand cum disconnection notice (5 Nos.)
Ext.A3 - Copy of letter
Ext.A4 - Disconnection advice
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
PW1 - Sri.Ben Bright (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Consumer details as on 24.05.2021
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
