IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated, the 30^th day of October, 2024

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

    Smt. Bindhu R.  Member

  Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 103/2024 (Filed on 20.03.2024)

O R D E R

Sri. Manulal V.S. (President)

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complainant has been a consumer of opposite parties by availing the water connection with Consumer ID 3272131891 since16.09.2020. Since the water connection was obtained from the opposite parties, the complainant has been paying a regular monthly bill of ₹ 50/- (Rupees fifty only). The complainant has a well and a motor connection and ample water is available. The water from the opposite parties is used solely for drinking purposes. On September 4, 2023, the complainant received a bill of ₹ 740/- (Rupees seven hundred and forty only) from the opposite parties, duly paid. Again, on November 3, 2023, a bill of ₹ 148/- (Rupees one hundred and forty eight only) was issued, which was paid promptly by the complainant. On 03.01.2024, the first opposite party notified the complainant that the connection would be cut off if the water was not used. This notice included a bill for ₹ 8,601/- (Rupees eight thousand six hundred and one only). The complainant only occasionally uses about eight liters of water for drinking purposes.

Despite paying the bills regularly, the complainant received an unexpectedly high bill for unused water. This is a one-time occurrence, no such bill was issued before or after. Additionally, the opposite party's staff does not come regularly to take meter readings, which is a serious error and service lapse on their part.

On 17.02.2024, the complainant sent a request to the opposite parties, asking for the meter to be repaired and for Bill No. 131348632 to be recalculated based on an average six-month reading. The response provided by the first opposite party on 28.02.2024 was unsatisfactory and withheld the truth.

The complainant has been paying bills online since September 2023. The bill dated 04.01.2024 for ₹ 8,601/- (Rupees eight thousand six hundred and one only) was handed over directly to the complainant. Online, the same bill shows amounts of both ₹ 8,601/- (Rupees eight thousand six hundred and one only) and  ₹ 8,730/- (Rupees eight thousand seven hundred and thirty only) on the online site. On the same date, the same bill number shows different amounts. Similarly, on 04.03.2024, a bill with No. 135607950 shows an amount of ₹ 8,863/- (Rupees eight thousand eight hundred and sixty three only) when given directly, but ₹ 9,007/- (Rupees nine thousand and seven only) is shown online with the same bill number and date, misleading the consumer. This amounts to a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

Hence, this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to cancel Bill No. 131348632 and to direct the opposite parties to issue a bill based on the average of the past six months after repairing the meter if there is any defect on the same. It is further prayed to direct the opposite parties to ensure all bills are accurate, avoid duplication, provide consistency between online and directly issued bills and pay ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as compensation for mental distress and ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as the cost of this litigation.

Upon notice from this Commission, opposite parties appeared before this Commission and filed joint version contenting as follows:

The water connection with No. 3272131891 was provided on 10.09.2020. The complainant's claim that they regularly paid       ₹ 50/- (Rupees fifty only) as the bill is incorrect. Since the connection date, due to COVID-19 restrictions and the gate being locked, an average monthly water charge for 10 KL was levied until 06.09.2021. From that date, the monthly charge was recalculated at a minimum rate, with a reduction of ₹ 245/- (Rupees two hundred forty five only) applied to subsequent bills. The complainant made an initial payment of ₹ 534/- (Rupees five hundred and thirty four only) on 03.09.2021. Despite bills being issued, an arrear of ₹ 740/- (Rupees seven hundred and forty only) for the period from 02.09.2022 to 04.09.2023 was paid only on 08.09.2023. Therefore, the claim that payments were made regularly is unfounded.

The complainant has paid ₹ 743/- (Rupees seven hundred and forty three only) as per the bill dated 04.09.2023 and ₹ 148/- (Rupees one hundred and forty eight only) as per the bill dated 03.11.2023. Readings could not be taken on 07.07.2023 and 05.09.2023 due to the gate being locked. On 04.11.2023, the meter reading was 334 KL. The usage rose to an average of 53.86 KL per month from 10 KL between 05.05.2023 and 04.11.2023. However, minimum rate charges were applied for this period. An additional bill for this usage was included with the bill dated 03.01.2024. A site inspection on 17.02.2024 confirmed that the meter was functioning correctly.

The complainant was billed based on the actual meter readings. The property has not been continuously occupied, and meter readings could not be taken in July and September 2023 due to the gate being locked.

The complainant's statement about discrepancies in the online bill amount is due to a lack of understanding. The due date for payment without penalty is only 15 days. If payment is not made within this period, the E-Abacus software automatically calculates the amount and adds interest beyond the due date without manual intervention. The dates on the printed bills provided by the complainant verify this. No misleading actions were taken by the water authority. The billing was based on accurate meter readings and the meter's functionality was verified.

In order to prove his case, the complainant filed a proof affidavit, and Exhibits A1 to A8 were marked. The assistant executive engineer of the first opposite party filed a proof affidavit for himself and on behalf of the second opposite party. There is no documentary evidence from the side of the opposite parties.

On perusal of the complaint, version and evidence on record, we would like to consider the following points.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties?
2. Reliefs and costs

For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider the point No. 1 and 2 together.

Admittedly, the complainant has been a consumer of water for domestic purposes provided by the opposite parties since 16.09.2020. There is no dispute that the consumer had paid the bill till 03.11.2023. Meanwhile, the opposite parties issued Ext.A1 bill for ₹ 8,601/- (Rupees eight thousand six hundred and one only). On 03.01.2024, which was towards bi-monthly water consumption and an additional bill. The complainant has contended that the issuance of this bill is violative of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply Regulations, 1991) in as much as the opposite parties failed to record the meter reading of actual consumption every six months and issue revised bill accordingly. By belatedly issuing the bill on 03.01.2024, an additional burden was cast upon the complainant to pay a consolidated sum for the entire period.  It is further alleged in the complaint that since September 2023, the complainant has been paying bills online; however, while the bill date 04.01.2024 was given directly to the complainant for ₹ 8,601/- (Rupees eight thousand six hundred and one only), the online portal shows the same bill amount as      ₹ 8,730/- (Rupees eight thousand seven hundred and thirty only). The question is whether this amounts to a deficiency in service.

The complainant produced the water bill from 04.11.2023 to 03.01.2024 and marked it as Exhibit A1. On perusal of the Exhibit A1 bill, we can see that the water meter reading is recorded as 334 on 04.11.2023 and 340 on 04.01.2024. On the other hand, the opposite parties contended that though the officials went to take the meter reading of the complainant, the door was closed, and hence, no readings were recorded on 07.07.2023 and 05.09.2023.

Exhibit A1 is the demand cum disconnection notice issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. In Exhibit A1, it is recorded that the bi-monthly consumption of the complainant from 04.11.2023 to 04.01.2024 is six kiloliters and the water charge for the same is ₹ 144/- (Rupees one hundred and forty four only). It is further demanded in Exhibit A1 that the amount of ₹ 8,457/- (Rupees eight thousand four hundred and fifty seven only) be paid as an additional bill amount. The opposite parties contended that as per the water meter reading, the average monthly consumption of the complainant from 05.05.2023 to 04.11.2023 was 53.86 kilolitres.

Regulation 13 of water supply regulations stipulated the procedure to be adopted to assess water charges.

 Regulation 13 reads as follows:-

a.The water consumer at the premises of a consumer shall be assessed at such intervals as decided by the Executive Engineer from time to time based on meter readings taken from the meter fixed to the house connection at the premises of the consumer.

b.The authority may also fix the monthly rate of water charges of a consumer based on his average consumption of water for the previous six months in the case of existing connections and based on the estimated consumption in the case of new connections and issue a provisional card in Form No. IX indicating there in the amount of water charges payable by the consumer every month, the date of payment and the institution at which the amount is to be remitted. The charges so fixed shall be revised if the consumption of water at the premises of the consumer is found to have increased or decreased based on the observations of the meter readings taken in the subsequent six months to the last period.

c.The Authority may also introduce a slab system for connection of water charges. The slab so fixed shall be revised if the consumption of water at the premises of the consumer is found to have increased or decreased, as the case may be, based on observations of the meter readings taken in the subsequent six months to the last period. The initial average rate of six months shall be fixed on the average consumption or metered average consumption of any six months preceding the date of coming into force of the slab system.

d. If the water charges, as provided under clauses (b) and (c) of this Regulation, already remitted by the consumer is found to be in excess or short based on the meter readings taken subsequently, the consumer shall pay to the authority the amount short remitted and the authority shall adjust the amount collected in excess from the consumer in the subsequent payments.  An adjustment bill in From No. IX shall be issued once in every six months to the consumer indicating the excess or short remitted by the consumer."

So, as per Regulation 13 (b), the Authority may also fix a consumer's monthly rate of water charges based on his average water consumption for any previous six months in the case of existing connections.

In version as well as in proof affidavit the opposite party has admitted that the complainant had paid ₹ 743/- (Rupees seven hundred and forty three only) against the bill dated 04.09.2023 and ₹ 148/- (Rupees one hundred and forty eight only) against the bill dated 03.11.2023.  It is further admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant had paid ₹ 740/- (Rupees seven hundred and forty only) as the water charges for the period from 02.09.2022 to 04.09.2023 on 08.09.2023. According to the opposite parties, meter readings were not taken in July and September 2023 because the gate was locked, therefore, an additional bill for the estimated usage during these months was included with the bill dated 03.01.2024.

There can be no doubt that as per the Provisions of Regulation 13 of the Kerala Water Supply Regulations, the Kerala Water Authority is bound to record the meter readings at an interval of 6 months. The opposite parties are duty-bound to issue additional bills, if any, at an interval of 6 months.  In this case, the opposite parties issued Ext.A1 bill for a period from July 2023 to January 2024.  Exhibit A2 proves that on inspection, it was found that there was no defect in the complainant's water meter.  Moreover, the complainant has not succeeded in establishing his case with cogent evidence. Taking all the above into consideration, the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^th day of October, 2024

    Sri. Manulal V.S, President   Sd/-

   Smt.Bindhu.R,  Member      Sd/-

   Sri.K.M.Anto, Member         Sd/-

APPENDIX :

Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :

A1     -        Copy of bill dated 03.01.2024

A2     -        Copy of letter dated 17.02.2024.

A3     -        Copy of reply notice dated 28.02.2024

A4     -        Copy of receipt dated 18.01.2024

A5     -        Copy of bill No. 131348632

A6     -        Copy of notice date 04.03.2024

A7     -        Copy of bill date 19.03.2024.

A8     -        Copy of notice dated 05.01.2022.

Exhibits from the side of the Opposite Parties :

Nil      

By Order,

SD/-

                                                                                                    Assistant Registrar