ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Parties (herein referred in short as O.Ps) alleging the deficiency in service and prayed to direct the OPs to pay Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a., and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

Complainant owns a house measuring 30 X 50 Sq. ft., constructed the same in the years 2003 and he had also dug a well in his house premises. Initially he was drawing the water from this well. After few days, thee ground water slowly  dried up and causing water shortage and it become almost empty during 2004.

3.     In the said house complainant living with his wife.  Due to lack of water facility, he used to purchase water from the taken till 2005.  During 2005, civic agency of city municipality commenced to provide water supply through bore well up to 2012 without installing meter.

4.     Thereafter, in the year, 2013 water supply of Cauvery river was provided to the complainant’s house and installed water meter bearing R.R. NO. S-202776/S-50 class B and meter NO. is M/L 220145.  At the time of installation, OP No.1 and  2 confirmed that they have provided tested meter and also received deposit of Rs. 2400/- from the complainant.  Cauvery Water is being supplied twice a week and he has constructed a sump of storage capacity of 3000 to 4000 liter so that, he could store 3000 to 4000 liters of water only.

5.     Complainant had also constructed first floor portion which is occupied by his daughter’s family, since 2017,  which consists of 4 person.  As soon as meter was installed, it started to function effectively to its full capacity of 1000 liter per hour based on its inbuilt capacity.  Subsequently from 2017,  the water meter used to exhibit abnormal reading i.e. 1,40,000 liters for which OP has raised a bill of Rs. 6320/-and such abnormal meter reading and billing continued till 2018 until  defective meter was replaced by OP.  After installation of new meter, OP raised club a `single bill for Rs. 12,287 without segregating the reading pertaining to defective meter as well as new meter with an ulterior motive of covering up the lapses of their personnel’s.  After that, complainant informed the OP about the malfunctioning of meter. The authorized persons OP NO. 1 and 2 conducted inspection on 25.02.2017 and reported the defect to the OP NO. 1 and 2 .  Therefore, OP NO. 1 and 2 advised the complainant to change the foot valve.  Accordingly complainant replaced the foot valve on 25.2.2017.  The meter again started to reflect normal consumption of water. 

6.     Being aggrieved by the unlawful act of  OP , complainant made several correspondence. OP’s have not given any reply or satisfactory resolution to the complainant’s problem till 27.1.2018.  In addition to that OPs are forcibly collecting money from the complainant.  Hence this complaint.  

7.     Upon the service of notice, OPs appeared before the Commission and filed their version contending that complainant has suppressed the material facts and the facts which are relating to the premises are not within his knowledge.  When the OP’s personals visited the premises, by that time, it was seen that the complainant’s family and his daughter’s family residing in the said house.  Further, the claim of the complainant  that Civic Agency has provided water supply through bore well since 2005 to 2012 has been denied by this OP and also denied having receive Rs. 10,000/- as deposit for the said water supply.   Say of the complainant that after merging  City Municipality with the BBMP, continued the same water facility till Cauvery Water  supply facility was extended up to 4.6.2013 is denied by OP.  In fact, complainant applied for water supply and sanitary connection to BWSSB in the month of November 2012 for ground floor only by paying necessary fee as per the board norms. 

8.     It is contended that the complainant started construction of first floor by January 2017 using BWSSB water as there was no other service of water supply to his premises.  Hence consumption in the month of Feb 2017 1,40,000 ltr., for which,  bill was raised by the OP.   As alleged by the complainant that the meter functioning capacity is 1000 ltr., Per hour is not correct.  It is stated that there is no specific functioning capacity of water meter since there is no constant of velocity force of water supply provided and discharge of water depends on velocity of water supply.  Further allegation of complainant regarding clubbed single bill for Rs. 12,287/- without segregating the difference, in defective meter as well as new meter and physical inspection made by the OP’s personal on 25.2.2012  is denied by OPs .

9.     It is contended that the meter installed in the premises of complainant recorded, water connection of;

        57000 ltr. In March 2017, 

18000 ltr. In April 2017,

87000 ltr. in May 2017,

53000 ltr. in June 2017   

55000 ltr. In July 2017 ,

49000 ltr. In Aug 2017,

64,000 ltr.In Sept 2017 ,

54000 ltr. In Oct 2017,

70000 ltr .in Nov 2017

36000 ltr. In Dec. 2017

30000 ltr. In Jan 2018

40000 ltr. In Feb 2018

2700 ltr. March 2018                                                                                                                                                                               10.   When the new meter was installed in October 2017 on the request of complainant, the water consumption for the month  showed 70,000 ltrs.  It clearly reveled that normal water consumption in the complainant’s house is 70000 ltr per month.  Due to abnormal consumption of water in the month of Feb 2017 it was 1,40,000 ltrs.  The complainant brought this  issue before water Adalat,  where Rs. 2363/- has been reduced from the total bill amount for the month of October 2017.  OPs have produced  meter reading  ledger extract  of New and  old meters  of the complainant’s house.  Further, Ops have written a letter to the complainant to show their honesty in that regard.  OP informed to the complainant  about  improper function ball valve on 27.1.2018 and same was brought to his notice during the inspection of the complainant ‘s house.  After replacing the ball valve consumption of water has come to normally.  So there is no fault on the part of OP.  Ops are never kept silent and not shown any negligent attitude to the complainant’s letter correspondence. Further question of fabricated bill do not arise at all.  Whatever the water consumed by the complainant the bills have been raised. 

11.   Further OP has stated that it replaced earlier meter NO. 142220 on receiving necessary charges for New meter cost of Rs. 1175/- on 16.08.2017. Since the complainant had not sought for getting test report of the replaced meter, the old meter was not sent for lab.  The lab cannot test the meter for reading between 2012-2017. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint as there is no deficiency in service.

12.    In order to prove the case, both the parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

13.   Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1& 2:      In the Negative

                                For the following.

REASONS

14.   POINT No.1:-

   Perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by respective parties.  It is clear that complainant had taken water supply connection from the City municipal Council by paying Rs.10,000/- as deposit on 26.07.2005 and the complainant availed the said facility up to 4.6.2013.    Thereafter City municipality was merged with BBMP and BBMP continued to provide Cauvery Water Supply with effect from 5.6.2013.  while providing Cauvery Water Supply, the OPs organization installed tested water meter bearing R.R. NO.S-202776/S-50 Class B  and meter No. is M/L 220145 and OP organization collected 2,400/- from the complainant towards meter charges.

15.   Further complaint submits in his complaint that his family consists only two member and he constructed first floor which is occupied by his daughter in the year 2017,   On perusing the complaint, he has not disclosed in the complaint as to when and what date he started the construction of first floor and when it was completed and the source of water used for the construction.  Further the complainant himself has admitted that his daughter’s family occupied the portion of first floor in the year 2017.  The above factors contribute to draw inference against complainant that the complainant is used Cauvery water to construct first floor and the family of complainant’s daughter has been living on the first floor since 2017 which is the reason for increase in usage of water. 

16.   Further OP has stated that when the complainant lodged a complaint the concerned authorities have visited the house of complainant and advised to change the ball valve of the sump which was not functioning properly and same was shown to the complainant during the inspection of the premises, for which complainant has not rebutted this, and also not furnished any proof to establish that the improper function of ball value has not affected on meter reading. On the other hand, complainant submitted in the complaint that after effecting certain repairs, the meter started to reflect normal consumption of water which gives force to draw presumption that there was some problem in the water connection unit.

17.   Further it is also clear from the water consumption schedule filed by the OP that even after installation of new meter in Oct 2017 the consumption of water in the month of Nov 2017 shows 70,000 ltrs.   It makes clearly that there is a normal consumption of water by the complainant’s family is around 70,000 ltrs per month.  Further In the month of Feb 2017 consumption of water varied up to 1,40,000 as  we do not feel it is exorbitant which happened due to technical problem in the  meter,  because,  complaint was constructing  house in the first floor and his daughter’s family occupied the portion of first floor in the which has led to increase in water consumption.

18.   Further it is observed that Since 2013 to  Feb2017 alleged water meter was functioning  properly and complainant did not have any complaint regarding said meter and on the request of complainant OP installed new meter in place of old  meter in the month of Oct 2017 and then also complainant did not have any objection regarding function of new meter.  It means OP installed defect free meter, so, the allegations of complainant regarding meter not recording proper reading do not survive as to the consumption of water in month of November 2017.  Further OP NO.1 and 2 filed meter testing report pertaining to the R.R. No. S-202776 where in meter testing centre of BWSSB reports that the said meter was tested on 4.9.2019 and the performance of meter is not satisfactory and also states that the test results are pertains to only at time of testing which makes clear that the performance was improper at the time of testing but the report has not disclosed the details of meter function during the disputed period. 

19.   In view of the above discussion  no evidence pertinent to reveal improper function of meter regarding water consumption of 1,40,000 in the month Feb 2017.  Hence we answer to POINT NO.1 and 2 in Negative and proceed to pass the following.

ORDER

1. Complaint is Dismissed. No cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 02^nd day of December 2020)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: My representation letters to the OP

Ex P2: Copy of the receipt having paid the amounts

Ex. P3: Application for water and sanitary connection

Ex P4: Letter and statement issued by OP       

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri.Raghavendra C.R.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Letter written by our board

Ex R2: Ledger Extract

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT