IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 21st day of July, 2018
Filed on 12.10.2017
Present
1. Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim , BA,LLM (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.278/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. Noushad 1. The Manging Director
S/o Muhammadkunju, Kerala Water Authority,
Labbayude Parambil, Jala Bhavan,
Pallana P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
Alappuzha.
(By Adv.Azeem Mohammed) 2. The Executive Engineer,
Kerala water authority,
Harippad P.O.,
Alappuzha.
ORDER
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
This case based on the complainant filed by Sri.Noushad against two opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The averments in the complaint in short are as follows.
The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties having consumer number TP3210D. The complainant availed the said connection from the second opposite party on 01-11-2010. Thereafter the complainant paid the water charge Rs.250/- on 24-02-2011, Rs.1,421/- on 18-08-2012, Rs.1,924/- on 05-09-2016 and Rs.370/- on 29-05-2017. Thereafter on 26-08-2017 the opposite parties issued a huge bill for an amount of Rs.1,03,850/- and on 25-09-2017 the complainant made a request before the second opposite party to reconsider the bill dated 26-08-2017 but the second opposite party is not ready to reconsider the said bill. According to the complainant the second opposite party was not issuing the bills regularly. From the bill dated 29-05-2017 it can be seen that bi-monthly usage of water is only 22KL. But the bill dated 26-8-2017 the usage shown is 150KL. The complainant’s family consists of six members only and there is no chance of usage of this much water. According to the complainant the water supplied by the second opposite party is used only for cooking and the complainant is having a water treatment plant for other house hold uses. The act of the opposite party caused much mental agony to the complainant and hence filed this complaint.
3. Notice was served to the opposite parties 1 & 2. Both represented before the forum and second opposite party filed version. The version is as follows:-
The complainant availed TKN3210 water connection on 01-11-2010. Even though the meter reader approached the complainant for taking the meter reading since the house was locked, the meter reader could not take the meter reading on 2013. Thereafter the reading was taken on 31-05-2017 and as per the said reading the usage is 5932 KL. Thereafter the meter reading was again taken on 13-09-2017 and the reading noted is 6061 KL and as per the said reading the by monthly consumption of water is 39.11 KL and the water charge per month is Rs.469/- and accordingly the amount is calculated as Rs.1,03,850/-. Since there was no sufficient employees for taking the meter reading it is not possible to take the meter reading regularly. But it is clear from the bill that the consumption has been reduced after taking the reading on 31-05-2017. The water authority is demanded only to pay the charges of consumed water and they are willing to provide instalments for the said amount.
4. In view of the above pleadings the following points arise for consideration:-
(I) Whether the complainant is liable to pay the bill issued by the second
opposite party dated 26-08-2017.
(II) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
5. Issues 1 & 2
The case of the complainant that the complainant has availed the domestic water connection from the 2nd opposite party on 01-11-2010 and the complainant paid the water charges up to 29-05-2017. Thereafter the opposite party issued a bill for an amount of Rs.1,03,850/- on 26-08-2017. According to the complainant the bill issued by the opposite party the exorbitant and the complainant is not liable to pay the said amount. Hence filed this complaint.
6. Complainant filed proof affidavit and produced 6 documents which are marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A6. Ext.A1 is the provisional invoice card issued by the second opposite party. Ext.A2 is the receipt dated 05-09-2016. Ext.A3 is the bill dated 29-05-2017. Ext.A4 is the receipt dated 07-06-2017. Ext.A5 is the demand cum disconnection notice dated 26-08-2017. Ext.A6 is the letter issued by the complainant to the second opposite party.
7. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of opposite party bearing consumer number TP3210/D and the said connection was availed on 01-11-2010. Even though the meter reading was not taken the complainant paid the water charge as per the domestic tariff up to 29-05-2017. According to the complainant the opposite party issued the bill for an amount of Rs.1,03,850/- on 26-08-2017. According to the complainant the bill levied by the opposite parties is exorbitant. According to the opposite party due to lack of employees the meter reading was not taken regularly and the first reading was taken on 31-05-2017. Again the meter reading was taken on 13-09-2017 as per the said reading the consumption is 39.11 KL per month. It is pertinent to note that after availing the said connection in 2010 the meter reading was taken only on 31-05-2017. The opposite party never tried to fix the average consumption of water by taking the meter reading continuously for 6 months as envisaged under the rules and without doing so they have no right to demand such a huge amount towards arrears. It is the duty of the opposite party to take periodical readings and intimate about the consumption of water and the water charges to the complainant. Non availability of the meter reader or other employees is not a ground for justifying their arbitrary actions. The opposite parties not entitled to make a demand for the arrears for more than 6 months as they are denied to take periodical reading at least ones in every 6 months. On an analysis of the entire materials it appears that the Ext.A5 bill issued by the opposite parties dated 26-08-2017 for an amount of Rs.1,03,850/- is without proper basis and reasoning. The unchallenged averments in the affidavits together with the documents would prove the case set up by the complainant. Therefore we find that the act of the opposite parties is not justifiable and is a clear case of deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the relief.
In the result the complaint stands allowed, directing the opposite parties to recall Ext.A5 bill and to issue fresh bill by calculating average water consumption on the basis of consumption of water for the immediate past 6 months.
The opposite parties are further restrained from disconnecting the disputed water connection from the premise of the complainant without providing opportunity to pay the amount of bill issued as stated above.
Since the primary relief having been met adequately we refrain from awarding compensation and cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 21st day of July, 2018.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Sd/-Sri.E.M.MuhammedIbrahim (President):
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Provisional invoice card
Ext.A2 - Receipt dated 05-09-2016
Ext.A3 - Bill dated 29-05-2017
Ext.A4 - Receipt dated 07-06-2017
Ext.A5 - Demand cum disconnection notice dated 26-08-2017
Ext.A6 - Letter dated 25-09-2017
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
