BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 01/12/2014
Date of Order : 20/06/2015
Present :-
Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
C.C. No. 889/2014
Between
C.D. Joy and P.D. Philomina, | :: | Complainants |
Chittilappilly House, SPW Road, Thaikkattukara. P.O., Aluva – 683 106. | (Parties-in-person) |
And
1. Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, | :: | Opposite Parties |
Vellayambalam, Trivandrum – 695 001 (Rep. by Authorised Signatory). 2. Billing Officer (Asst. Executive Engineer), KWA PH Sub-Division, Aluva – 683 101. | (By Adv. P.A. Augustine, 91, D.D. Tex World, Market Road, Kochi – 11.) |
O R D E R
V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
1. The facts of the complainant's case are as follows :-
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainants are consumers of the opposite parties and the consumer No. assigned to them is CHK/2806/D and the above water connection to the residential building of the complainants was transferred to the name of the 1st complainant with effect from 19-05-2014 from that of the previous owner. The complainants received a bill dated 14-04-2014 from the billing officer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Sub-division, Aluva demanding Rs. 22,322/- from the complainants. The due date for payment was on 23-05-2014. On enquiry with the 2nd opposite party, the Assistant Executive Engineer, it was informed that another bill for Rs. 11,000/- was earlier sent to the complainants in the month of November. It is submitted that no such bill was received by the complainants. It is further submitted that the complainants were not served with any water charge bill during the period from 20-08-2013 to 24-04-2014 and the water charges for Rs. 22,322/- as per the bill dated 24-04-2014 was paid by the complainants on 13-05-2014 and requested the 1st opposite party Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority for the refund of the said amount, since the leakage of water was due to the breakage of the pipe underground. But there was no response from the 1st opposite party. Therefore, the complainants approached this Forum seeking direction against the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 22,322/- paid by the complainants.
2. Sri. P.A. Augustine, standing counsel for the Kerala Water Authority filed the version for the 2nd opposite party and on behalf of the 1st opposite party also.
The version of the opposite parties : The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and is filed only to harass the opposite parties. The averments contained in the complaint are without any merit and are not fully correct. The bill dated 24-04-2014 was issued to the complainants based on the actual meter reading shown in the water meter. The following are the details of the water consumption of the complainants :
Date | Reading | Monthly consumption |
23-04-2013 | 410 KL | 28.90 KL |
21-08-2013 | 876 KL | 118.10 KL |
25-04-2014 | 1886 KL | 124.39 KL |
15-05-2014 | 1917 KL | 47.15 KL |
It is submitted that the bill dated 31-10-2013 for Rs. 11,743/- and the bill dated 31-12-2013 for Rs. 16,023/- were issued to the complainants by the 2nd opposite party on the basis of the actual meter reading and hence the bills issued demanding huge amounts. It is further submitted that if there was any leak in the service line of the complainants it is the duty of the consumer to find out the leak and to rectify the same. The complainants negligently kept the leaking pipe line without making any repair work. Hence the complainants alone are liable to pay the excess water charges. However, the complainants can very well avail leak benefit in respect of hidden leakage by submitting proper application before the Executive Engineer. The following are the leak benefit calculation in respect of the water connection to the complainants :
“23-04-2013 to 21-08-2013 = 4 months
(118.1-50 (25-14) 4 ie.
68.1 x 11 x 4 = 2996.4
22-08-2013 to 25-04-2014 = 8 months
(124.39-50) (25-14) 8 ie.
74.39 x 11 x 8 = 6546.3
Total = 9542.72
(Leak Period from 23-04-2013 to 25-04-2014)”
It is prayed that the contentions of the opposite parties raised in the version may be accepted and the complaint filed by the complainants may be dismissed with costs of the proceedings to the opposite parties.
3. The issues to be decided in this case are as follows :-
Whether the complainants are entitled to refund of the impugned bill amount of Rs. 22,322/- paid to the opposite parties?
Whether the parties are entitled to get costs of the proceedings?
4. Issue No. i :- No oral evidence adduced by the complainants. The documentary evidences furnished by the complainants were not marked, since the complainants and the 2nd opposite party came to settlement terms during the proceedings in this Forum. The relevant portion is as follows :-
“The complainants have no objection in levying Rs. 12,780/- after deducting Rs. 9,542.72 from the total bill amount of Rs. 22,322/- as per bill dated 24-04-2014.”
Thus, the complainant is entitled to get a considerable amount of Rs. 9,542.72 towards “leak benefit” for the leak period from 23-04-2013 to 25-04-2014 and the complainants also agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 12,780/- (Rs. 22,322 – 9,542.72 = 12,779.28) by adjusting the above amount in future bills. Thus, the complaint is disposed in terms of the above settlement memo filed before this Forum.
5. Issue No. ii. :- It is seen that the complainants approached the 2nd opposite party when the exorbitant bill dated 24-04-2014 was received and the services of a plumber was provided to the complainants and the plumber found leakage in the service line of the complainants. The 2nd opposite party ought to have granted the “leak benefit” to the complainants in accordance with the relevant Rules or Regulations, when the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party. The calculation of the leak benefit in the version filed by the 2nd opposite party shows that the complainants are entitled to deduction of a considerable amount towards “leak benefit”. We find that the complainants are unnecessarily dragged to this Forum to get the above benefit. We also find that the 2nd opposite party is not in the habit of raising and issuing regular water bills to its customers. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to grant any amount towards costs of the proceedings to the opposite parties. The complainant shall also bear the costs in the circumstances of the case.
6. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the 2nd opposite party shall allow the “leak benefit” to the complainants of Rs. 9,542.72 and shall adjust the balance amount of Rs. 12,780/- as per the bill dated 24-04-2014 in the future bills that may be raised by the 2nd opposite party.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20th day of June 2015
Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Senior Superintendent.
