BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 1^st day of February 2014.

Filed on : 24-04-2013

PRESENT:

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.

CC.No. 300/2013

Between

K.T. Gopalan, : Complainant

Kolathuruthel house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court

Kunnackal P.O., Road, Muvattupuzha)

Muvattupuzha-682 316.

Vs

1.Managing Director, : Opposite parties

Kerala Water Authority, (By Adv. P.A. Augustine, Standing

Thiruvananthapuram-1. Counsel for Kerala Water Authority,

91, D.D. Tex World, Market road,

Kochi-11)

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Kerala Water Authority,

P.H. Sub Division,

Muvattupuzha-686 661.

O R D E R

A Rajesh, President.

The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant is a domestic category consumer of water supply under the 2^nd opposite party with consumer No. VKM/181. The complainant has a well in his premises. Hence the use of water from the water supply scheme is less and within the minimum PIC charge. The availability of water through the water supply line of the opposite parties is very negligible especially during summer season. While so, the complainant was served with an additional bill for Rs. 28,000/-. Since the consumption has been very less, he submitted an objection before the 2^nd opposite party asking to withdraw the demand. But instead of withdrawing the demand, the complainant was served with a bill for Rs. 24,000/-. Again another objection was submitted before the opposite party. After considering the objection, the complainant was asked to pay Rs. 4,000/- and the complainant paid that amount on 14-11-2011. Again another demand notice for Rs. 18,242/- dated 23-04-2012 was served on the complainant. Though an objection was submitted against the demand nothing has been done by the 2^nd opposite party to withdraw the demand. But the complainant was served with another demand notice dated 04-03-2013 for Rs. 17,359/-. The complainant is not liable to pay Rs.17,359/- shown in the demand notice dated 04-03-2013. The consumption of the complainant never exceeded the PIC amount. On a perusal of meter reading details provided by the 2^nd opposite party, it could be seen that the exorbitant bill was issued on the basis of the inflated consumption recorded during the period from 12/2010 to 7/2011. That is, only for six months during the entire billing period. It is also relevant to note that the availability of water during the exorbitant bill period was very meager in the locality. Hence it is very clear that the exorbitant meter reading is either due to the meter fault or due to air pressure in the line. In fact the air safety valve was replaced by the complainant after the receipt of the bill since it was noticed that the valve had been defective. The complainant is entitled for the withdrawal of the demand for Rs. 17,537/- raised by the 2^nd opposite party in their notice dated 04-03-2013. The complainant is also entitled to get the costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:

The complainant availed the water connection on 22-11-1999. The water meter installed in the connection is properly working. The average monthly consumption of water is calculated as per meter reading which is

recorded between an interval of six months. The complainant had a minimum water charge up to December 2010. Thereafter the monthly consumption increased considerably as per meter reading recorded between 06-12-2010 and 27-07-2011which reads as follows:

06-12-2010 1077 KL

27-07-2011 2267 KL

As the monthly consumption is increased monthly water charge also increased to 3067/- from December 2010 and an additional bill was issued for Rs. 22,080/-. The complainant submitted an objection to the bill after making a part payment of Rs. 4,000/-. A site inspection was conducted to check the service line of the complainant but no leak was found. It is understood that the complainant had misused the water for construction purposes during the disputed period. There is no cause of action for the complainant against the opposite parties. The complaint deserves dismissal.

3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Ext. A1 to A6 and B1 were marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite parties respectively. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:

i. Whether the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 17, 359/- to the

opposite parties as per the impugned bill?

ii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay the costs of the

proceedings to the complainant?

5. Point No. i. Ext. B1 is the consumer ledger of the complainant. As per Ext. B1 the consumption of water by the complainant is as under.

6. Admittedly the dispute regarding the consumption of water is from December 2010 to July 2011. Ext. B1 goes to show that there is sudden spurt in the reading from 1077 KL on 06-12-2010 to 2267 on 27-07-2011. During evidence both the parties agreed to take long average reading in Ext. B1 from December 2009 to December 2010 and to issue bill for the disputed period.

7. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite party shall withdraw the impugned bill and issue a revised bill taking long average consumption of water by the complainant from December 2009 to December 2010 and issue bill for the disputed period that is from December 2010 to July 2011. The opposite parties shall adjust the remittance if any made by the complainant with the same bill. Since the primary grievance of the complainant is sufficiently met, we do not award costs of the proceedings especially this agreement has been agreed upon by both the parties.

The above said order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 1^st day of February 2014.

Sd/-A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior superintendent.

Appendix                                                                               

            Complainant’s exhibits :

Ext. A1 : Copy of receipt dt. 14-11-2011

A2 : Copy of letter dt. 14-11-2011

A3 : Copy of letter dt. 14-11-2011

A4 :   Copy of letter dt. 07-05-2012

A5: Copy of demand/Disconnection notice

dt.23-04-2012

A6: Copy of letter dt. 04-03-2013

          Opposite party’s exhibits:

Ext. B1 : Copy of consumer ledger