KERALA STATE CONSUMENR DISPUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.459/05 JUDGMENT DATED.31.07.08 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER 1. The Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Trivandrum. 2. The Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Vellayambalam, Trivandrum. 3.The Asst.Ex.Engineer, : APPELLANTS Water Supply Sub Divivison, Kollam. (By Adv.C.Sasidharan Pillai) Vs Mery Stella, W/o.Joseph, Jibi Nivas, : RESPONDENT Kannanalloor.P.O., Kollam. (By Adv.Z.A.Sukhil Khadar & E.Shanavaskhan) JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated.1.2.05 of CDRF, Kollam in OP.No.22/04. The complaint was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants 1 to 3 as opposite parties, seeking for cancellation of Ext.P3 bill dated.13.8.03 issued by the opposite parties and also for getting other reliefs. The lower forum thereby allowed the complaint by cancelling the disputed bill issued by the opposite parties and directing to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation to the complainant. 2. The facts of the case are that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party, that the water connection was in the name of her husband and after his death the complainant was paying Rs.22/- per month as water charges as per provisional invoice card issued by the opposite parties. But it was enhanced to Rs.52/- and that amount has been paid by the complainant until 01.10.01. On 13.8.03 the complainant was served with a bill for Rs.9575/- towards water charges for the period from 01.04.99 to 7/03. The monthly charge was shown as Rs.211/-. On 28.11.03 the complainant paid 1/3 of the bill amount, that is, Rs.3048/-. 3. The opposite parties filed version and contended that the complainant is not a consumer and that the bill issued to the complainant was based on the readings taken. On 01.09.99 the meter reading was 2470 KL, and thereafter on 10.4.99 meter was replaced. On 10.07.01 again meter reading was taken then the reading was 3979 KL and finally on 30.09.2003, the reading was shown as 5300 KL and the tariff rate was changed to Rs.211/- per month. They further contended that the consumer is liable to pay the water charges for excess consumption. 4. We heard the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. The learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the respective stand taken before the Forum. There was no representation for the respondent. According to the appellants the complainant is not a consumer because the connection is in the name of her husband who is now no more. He further submitted that the bill was issued by the Kerala Water Authority for the water actually consumed by the consumer and the bill was issued on the basis of the readings recorded in the water meter and requested for setting aside the impugned order. 5. The main points to be consider are whether the complainant is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act and whether there occurred any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in issuing the disputed bill. 6. The complainant being the beneficiary can be treated as a consumer within the scope of section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act. So no doubt that the complainant is a consumer. 7. Regulation 13 of water supply regulations stipulated the procedure to be adopted in the matter of assessment of 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 any 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.VIII indicating therein 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 collection 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 for the six months shall be fixed on the average consumption or metered average consumption of any six months preceeding 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 Form No.IX shall be issued once in every six months to the consumer indicating the excess or short remitted by the consumer. 8. The Kerala Water Authority failed to take the readings as stipulated in clause (a) of regulation 13. In this case, the arrear bill has been issued without taking reading as stipulated under clause (b) of regulation 13. It is also stipulated that the adjustment bill in Form No.IX shall be issued once in every six months to the consumer. In the present case no such adjustment bill have been issued to the consumer. The issuance of Ext.P3 bill claiming a sum of Rs.9575/- as arrears shows the failure on the part of the appellants in taking the reading in time. 9. The facts and available records would show that there was negligence on the part of the complainant in making payment towards the water charges due under the provisional invoice card. The complainant was bound to make payments towards water charges. The non-payment of water charges cannot be justified. 10. It is to be noted that Ext.P3 bill is issued on the basis of the meter reading. No doubt about the fact that the complainant is bound to pay minimum water charges. But here in the disputed bill the rate is shown as Rs.211/- per month. Clause (d) of the regulation 13 prescribes the mode to be adopted in the case the water charges are revised under clause (b) and (c) of regulation 13. The complainant was paying @ Rs.52/- per month up to 01.10.01. If the charges are revised the adjustment bill in the Form No.IX shall be issued once in every six months indicating the excess or short remitted by the consumers. The case of the complainant is that she had remitted the water charges as per provisional invoice card up to 01.10.01. As per PIC, the complainant is bound to pay @ Rs.52/- per month. No adjustment bill was given to the complainant. So the consumer can be charged only @ Rs.52/- per month from 01.10.01 to 7/03. The bill issued to the complainant is for a period from 01.04.99 to 7/03. No evidence has been produced from the side of the opposite parties to show that the meter reading is taken at the intervals of six months. 11. Admittedly the complainant failed to remit the water charges from 01.10.01 onwards. The records would show that there was negligence on the part of the complainant in making the payment towards water charges from 01.10.01 onwards. The lower Forum ordered to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation to the complainant who is admittedly the defaulter in making payment towards the water charges. So, the order regarding payment of compensation of Rs.1000/- is to be set aside. The appellants did not produce any evidence regarding the change of tariff. In the version it is stated that the tariff rate has been changed Rs.52/- to Rs.211/- But that was not proved. It is well settled law that pleadings are not evidence much less proof. In the absence of any evidence the case of the appellants cannot be accepted. So, the appellants can charge only at the rate of Rs.52/- per month from 01.10.01 to 07/03. In the result the order of the forum is modified and the appellants/opposite parties are directed to issue a fresh bill for the period from 01.10.01 to 07/03 @ Rs.52/- per month. The amount of Rs.3085/- which was already remitted by the complainant is to be adjusted in future bills. The order regarding payment of Rs.1000/- as compensation to the complainant is set aside. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part. As far as the present appeal is concerned, there shall be no order as to costs. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT R.AV
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA | | 
