IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

                        Friday the 09^th  day of November, 2018.

                                 Filed on 30 -01-2017

  Present

1. Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim,B.A,LLM (President)

2.  Smt. Sheela Jacob, B.com,LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.28/2017

   between

  Complainants:-                                                        Opposite parties:-

1. Smt. V. Lalitha                                                           

Jasmine House                                                    1.   Asst. Executive Engineer

Convent Square                                                        Kerala Water Authority     

Alappuzha-688001                                                              SubDivision, Vazhichery

                                                                                 Alappuzha

2. Sri. V. Sundar, -do-

Now Residing at

Veeriah Buildings

C.C.S.B. Road, Iron Bridge

ORDER

SRI.E.M.MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM. BA. LLM.

This is a case based a consumer complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act.  The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

1.       The 1^st complainant is a senior citizen and a consumer of the opposite party Water Authority having consumer No. AWS 76/2/D. The 2^nd complainant is none other than the son of the 1^st  complainant.  The opposite party Water Authority issued a bill for Rs. 14,791/- for the consumption of water from 15/12/94 to 5/4/2004.    2^nd complainant challenged the bill before this Forum by filing Op No. A 99/04 the said case was allowed on 22/11/05 by cancelling the above bill for Rs. 14,291/- and the directed   opposite party to collect charges for the average consumption on the basis of the reading dated.15/5/04 which is 5683/-.  Accordingly 2^nd complainant has been regularly paying water charges.   While so he received a bill for a huge additional amount which he is not bound to pay he paid Rs. 594/- as water charges during the year 2013 and also approach the opposite party Asst. Executive Engineer. Kerala Water Authority Sub Division, Vazhichery, Alappuzha to know how the huge bill happened to be issued.  But the            opposite party has not given any proper reply.  During the year 2014 spot billing system was introduced and the 2^nd complainant went to the office of the opposite party to pay spot billing amount.  But opposite party refused to receive the bill amount without remitting additional bill amount.  Again the 2^nd complainant requested in writing sending a notice.  There upon the opposite party send reply dated. 15/6/13stating that the average consumption for the period from 12/12/2006 to 24/09/2013 was fixed 51 Kilo liter and accordingly the complainant has to pay water charges Rs. 50,014/- for the period from 15/12/94.  As per order dtd. 22/11/05 this forum  the bill amount of Rs. 14,791/- calculated by the  opposite party from 15/12/94 till 5/4/04 has been set aside with a direction to calculate consumption charges on the basis of the reading of  5683 recorded on 15/5/04 and also the average consumption of the continuing months.  Therefore the opposite party is not having any right to realize water charges as calculated by them for the above period without observing the above direction.  There after the complainants have been regularly remitting water charges till 2014 as per the spot bill issued.  Therefore the opposite party is not entitled to realize additional amount from the complainant.  However the meter installed at the premises of the complainant become faulty from 24/12/2013.  But the opposite party has calculated water consumption at the rate of 102 Kilo liter for the period 13/1/14 to 9/1/17 and has been issuing heavy bill including penalty and surcharge.   On 9/1/2017 the opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 94,348/- stating that they will disconnect the water connection if the amount shown in the above bill has not been paid immediately.  The 1^st complainant is a senior citizen and has been laid up due to old age illness.  According to the complainant due to the dereliction of duty of the opposite party the bill for a huge amount happened to be issued to the complainant and the same has caused much mental agony and threat to the complainant.   There is dereliction of duty on the side of the Opposite party.  Hence the bill for a huge amount happened to be issued and there by the harassing the complainant and hence  the complainant is not bound to pay  bill for the huge amount.  The complainant is entitled to get an order restraining the opposite party from disconnecting the water connection   installed at the premises of the complainant and also restrain the Opposite party from initiated any legal proceedings against the complainants.  The complainant further pray to pass an order declaring that the complainant is not bound to pay the disputed bill amount due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.   The complainant further pray to direct the opposite party to re fix  water consumption of the complainant  for the disputed period and to grant compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- and costs of  the proceedings. 

2.       Opposite party resisted the complaint by contenting that they were not aware of the previous order passed by this Forum.  If they obtain a copy of the order, they would have certainly complied with the order.  However it is contended that the complainant has paid Rs. 594/- on 16/1/2013 which is the last payment of water charges.  The above payment was on the basis of water charges fixed  during January 2001.  The slab fixed for the complaint as on those days was 12 Kiloliters and the said amount was for 12 months water charges.  But the actual use of water during  those months was about 50 kiloliters the bill amount of Rs. 14,322/- is the amount for the excess use of water charges from December 1994 to 2004 April against which the complainant filed Op No. IA 299/04.  Later the complainant counsel to replace the water meter on 12/12/2006 and thereafter also the average consumption was above consumption was 50 kiloliters and the bill for the above consumptions was issued but the complainant failed to remit the said bill amount.  However on 28/11/2013 the water meter installed at the premises became defective.  Hence the Opposite party taken the previous average of 51 Kiloliters as average consumption and the opposite party is also entitled to realize surcharge for the nonfunctioning of the water meter.  In spite of repeated request to replace the defective meter and to pay the bill amount the complainant has not and to pay the bill amount the complainant has not paid any need to the request of the opposite party. It is further prayed to issue direction to the complainant to pay the amount due to the water authority and replace the defective water meter.

3.       In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief sought for?
3. Relief and cost.

4. Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1, Ext.A1 to A12series documents.

The opposite party has not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary. 

The complainant counsel has filed notes of arguments but not advanced any oral argument.  The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has not filed any notes of argument but advanced oral argument.

5. Points No. 1 and 2:-

For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 2 points are considered together.  The main grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party water authority  issued a bill for Rs.14,192/- for consumption of water from 15/12/1994 to 5/4/ 2004 the said bill was challenged by the 2^nd  complainant  before this Forum  by filing Op No. A 99/04.  Accordingly this Forum has cancelled the bill and directed the opposite party to collect average consumption based on the meter reading dated 15/5/2004 which is 5683.  Thereafter the 2^nd complainant has been regularly paying water charges while so he received a bill  for huge additional amount and he is not bound  to pay  the same as he  was paying water charges at the rate of Rs. 594/-  till the year 2013.  However the 2^nd complainant approached the opposite party to know the details of the additional bill but no proper reply has been given by the opposite party.  However after introducing the spot billing system the 2^nd complainant approached the opposite party and attempted to pay the spot billing amount.   But the opposite party refused the same and insisted to pay the amounts shown in the additional bill.  The 2^nd complainant obtained the details of the average consumption of 12/12/2006 to 24/9/2013 which was fixed at  51 kilo liter and the complainant was  directed to pay Rs. 50,014/- for the period from 15/12/1994 till 5/04/2004.  According to the complainants the opposite parties are not having any right to realize additional amount for a period of 10 years especially, when he was regularly remitting  water charges till 2004 as per the spot bill issued.  The further case of the complainant is that the meter installed at the premises of the complainant is faulty from 24/12/2013.  Opposite party has calculated water consumption at the rate of 102 Kilo liter for the period from 13/1/2014 to 9/1/2017. And on 9/1/2017 opposite party issued  a heavy bill for  Rs. 94,348/- including penalty and also threatened the complainant by stating that if the above bill amount is not paid they would  disconnect the water connection and there by the opposite party has been harassing the complainants.  According to the complainants   there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence they are not bound to pay the disputed additional bill amount.  The opposite party would content that during the pendency of case No. 299/04the disputed water connection was in the name of one G. Das.   Subsequently water connection was transferred in the name of the 1^st complainant.   It is further contented by the opposite party that as per direction of this Forum average consumption was fixed and was also issued bill accordingly.   Admittedly Ext.A2 is the replay notice sent by the opposite party to the complainant where in it is stated that the opposite party has fixed the average consumption of the water by the complainant as directed in the order of this Forum passed in OP No.A99/04.  Though the complainants admit Ext.A2 reply notice they would claim that the average consumption was not properly fixed by the water authority.   The further allegation of the complainant is that the water authority has calculated bill without considering the order of this Forum.  Hence the subsequent calculation is also in correct.  It is clear from Ext.A2 reply notice that the average consumption was calculated for the period from 12/12/2006 till 24/09/2013.  However after receiving Ext.A2 during the month of June 2014 complainant has not paid any amount till the filing of the complaint.    It is also brought out in evidence that during the year 2006 the faulty meter was replaced by new meter and thereafter the average monthly water consumption is 51 kilo liter.   It is also brought out in evidence that said water meter has become faulty on 28/11/2013 and the opposite party has intimated that fact to complainants directly and through bill issued, but the complainants have not taken any steps to replace the faulty meter.

 Admittedly the opposite party Water Authority has issued Ext.A2 letter intimating the average consumption of water by the complainants and as per the data shown the, average monthly consumption of water is 51 kilo liter and there is no reliable and convincing   materials to show   that the average monthly consumption of water by the complainant was 45.5kilo liters as calculated by the complainant in the notes of arguments.   In the circumstances the complainant are bound to pay water charges as per the consumption shown in Ext.A2 letter.  As the complainants are chronic defaulter of payments of water charges they are  not entitled to get faulty meter  replaced without remitting  arrears of water charges shown in the bill.   It is also clear from the materials available on records that  there is no deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party  and as the  complainant are chronic defaulters  of water charges, they are not entitled to get any of the  reliefs sought for  in the complainant and  in the complaint is only to be dismissed.  But it is made clear that if the complainants are ready to pay the arrears of water charges on the basis of the average consumption shown in Ext.A2 notice, the opposite party shall replace the faulty meter as per rules.

          Points answered accordingly.:-

Point No. 3:-

          In the result complaint stands dismissed subject to the observation that if the complainants remit the water charges till date as per the calculation shown in Ext.A2 letter, the opposite party shall replace the faulty meter at the premises of the complainant as per rules.   Both parties are directed to suffer of their respective costs.

 Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 09^th   day of  November, 2018.                   

                                      Sd/-Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim (President)

                                               Sd/- Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)

// True Copy //

       By  Order   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

To

         Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

Typed by:- Br/- 

Compared by:-