BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

06^th DAY OF JUNE 2020

O R D E R

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct OPs to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards deficiency of service, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards unnecessary and unwarranted pressure and force with threat of disconnection, to pay cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

2. The brief allegations made in the complaint are as under:

Complainant submitted that complainant is the son of Late C.R Sitharam to whom the property situated in the address given in the cause title was allotted by the SBI Staff Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Bengaluru which was a residential site measuring 28x40 on which initially one dwelling unit in the ground floor was constructed in the year 1977 and first floor was constructed in the year 1989.  While constructing the first floor unit, a sump measuring 5x4x4 feet was also constructed in addition to digging a open well for domestic use.  The said property has been provided with cauvery water facility since 1977.  That the ground floor house property has been occupied by the complainant and his ailing mother along with an attendant whereas the 1^st floor has been let out to a small family.

Complainant further submitted that the father of the complainant was making payment for water consumption charges based on the demand bills raised by OP.  After the demise of complainant’s father, complainant has been making payment of the water consumption charges as per the periodical demand bills raised by the OPs without facing any problem till June 2012 and till such period, average meter reading used to be 25000 litres per month for the entire building.  But during July 2012, the functioning of the water meter got stopped owing to certain technical defects as communicated by meter reading officials of the OPs who use to raise demand bills without any basis besides insisting the complainant to make payment of the same by posing threat of disconnection of water facility.

Complainant further submitted that being perturbed by the attitude of the OPs with whom the complainant was making constant persuasion for providing the details of the water consumption based on which the demand bills were being raised by the OPs.  In the meanwhile on 26.06.2017, the OPs replaced the water meter without giving prior intimation or notice even though their action of raising defective demand bills were disputed by the complainant.  However, the complainant was constantly persuading the OPs for providing grounds for raising of such imaginary bills.  Surprisingly instead of conceding to the genuine request of the complainant, the OPs unilaterally arrived at certain unbelievable arrears of pending bills manipulated to justify their unlawful actions for demanding the payment of arrears to the extent of Rs.47,135/- after appropriating the amounts paid by the complainant to the extent of Rs.14,000/-.

Complainant further submitted that according to the aforesaid directions of the OPs, the complainant attended the Adalat on 24.07.2018 and participated in the proceedings wherein he again made representations to provide the breakup details for the aforesaid arrears of the pending bills.  But the OPs failed to provide the desired information owing to their non maintenance of the books of accounts properly.  To cover up their lapse, they have been indulging in bringing pressure on the complainant by luring him for payment of unilaterally settle amount of Rs.26,913/- by taking into account an average consumption of 25,000 litres per month from July 2012 to June 2017 i.e., till the replacement of the defective meter in addition to demanding purported bill amount of Rs.59,187/- by calculating interest @ an exorbitant rate of 20% p.a with an assurance that subject to the payment of the said amount, they would close the dispute which is pending since 2012.  From the details provided by them for RTI Application, it is evident that against the pending arrears of Rs.133/- from July 2012, interest has been calculated at exorbitant rate and arrears of pending bill has been unilaterally arrived at Rs.26,264/- for which OPs are unable to provide the break up details till date.

Complainant further submitted that being not convinced by the aforesaid unilateral proposal closure of the pending dispute and decision, complainant demanded for providing the breakup details by way of an application dated 22.09.2018 under RTI Act addressed to the OP-1 for the said RTI Application, the OPs have given reply on 01.11.2018 along with manipulated breakup details wherein they have again made futile efforts to exhibit purported arrears of pending bill amount at Rs.59,187/- by covering up their lapses as to the non maintenance of proper books of accounts which should have been linked to the meter reading details.  Since in the bills raised by them, it has been reflected the ‘meter stopped’ for over 58 months whereby it has to be construed that the OPs are habituated to falsify and manipulate the figures to fabricate books of accounts only with an ulterior motive of cheating common public like the complainant and forcibly collecting unreasonable amounts by posing threat of disconnection of water supply etc.  Further inspite of continued correspondence has to the pending complaint made to the OPs they have raised demand for Rs.4,000/- under the head other charges without any documentary proof to that effect.  Again the OPs issued directions to the complainant to participate in the Adalat held by them on 24.07.2018 in the office of OP-3.

Complainant further submitted that being aggrieved by the unilateral and unlawful actions of the OPs, the complainant has been making continued correspondence since 22.10.2013 hoping for an amicable settlement.  But unfortunately the OPs have been maintaining ‘divine silence’ in the matter till date for reasons best known to them and failed to give satisfactory reply.  That on 20.08.2018, OP-3 communicated vide letter dated 10.08.2018 that outstanding bill is Rs.26,913/- and ready to waive an amount of Rs.32,274/-.  To avail the same, the complainant being pressurized by the concerned officials of the OP to make payment of Rs.29,600/- i.e., 50% of July 2018 bill without giving any breakup details with an ulterior motive to cover up their lapses which is mainly due to negligent, reluctant, and careless attitude.  Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence complainant filed this complaint.

3. In response to the notice issued, OPs.1 to 3 appeared through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief, as under:

OPs.1 to 3 submitted that complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed in limine by imposing exemplary and compensatory costs upon the complainant.  That the Board is governed by Bangalore Water Supply and sewerage Act, 1964 and the Bangalore Water Supply Regulations 1965.  The complainant is not a consumer of OPs.  That the water and sewage connection with the OP stands in the name of Sri.C.R Sitharam, the father of the complainant.  Complainant enjoying the service through connection which was standing in the name of a dead person.  No application made by complainant for change in name of consumer or mutation of his name in place of his father.  There is no connection existing in the name of the complainant and the same has been admitted by the complainant.  Complainant himself has admitted that the connection stands in the name of his father.  Complainant has no locus-standi to file this complaint.

OPs.1 to 3 further submitted that complainant alleged the average meter reading used to be 25,000 liters per month for the entire building.  But during July 2012 the functioning of the water meter got stopped owing to certain technical defects as communicated by meter reading officials of the OPs who use to raise demand bills without any basis besides insisting the complainant to make payment of the same by posing threat of disconnection of water facility.  That the meter was stopped due to the technical issues of the meter.  The calculation of the average consumption is on the basis of the last 6 months usage.  The average consumption was comes to 25000 liters accordingly minimum bill was issued form October 2012 to July 2017.  That upto June 2012 bill is issued as per the readings of the meter, after the June meter was stopped next bill is issued in the month of October 2012 with demand bill of Rs.26,397/-.  The difference of amount i.e., 26,264/- is additional amount showing as arrears amount.  To correct this average consumption of water 25000 liters considering from July 2012 to July 2018.  Only for the purpose of correctness, the OP offered the write off amount of Rs.32,274/- in the water adalat.  After this write off amount the consumer is liable to pay Rs.26,913/- as on July 2018.  That the OP replaced the water meter according to OP Board circular.

OPs.1 to 3 further submitted that the OPs offered the write off amount of Rs.32,274/- in the water adalat.  After this write off amount the consumer is liable to pay Rs.26,913/- as on July 2018.  That the ledger extract is already handed over to the complainant.  The complainant alleged that Rs.4,000/- raised under the head of other charges without any documentary proof.  That on Mr.Gundachari P, by mistake had paid an amount of Rs.4,000/- to the alleged complainant’s R.R number.  The payment made by said Mr.Gundachari is no way concerned to the complainant alleged R.R number.  Wherefore the same amount was raised as other charges.  The allegation that OPs have victimized the complainant by forcibly colleting the amounts demanded based on their fabricated bills.  These allegations are totally false.  The complainant has attended the water adalat.

OPs.1 to 3 further submitted that as per Regulation 31 of Bangalore Water Supply Regulation, 1965 reads as “objections, if any, as regards reading of meter shall be lodged by the consumer within seven days from the date of issuing of the bill.  No complaints received after the said period shall be entertained.  Objections may be submitted to the Water Supply Engineer who shall consider the objections within a reasonable time.  In the instant case the complainant not lodged the complaint before concerned engineer within stipulated period.

OPs.1 to 3 further submitted that any cause of action ever accrued or is disclosed in the entire complaint.  OPs are not responsible or liable for any of the alleged claims of the complainant.  The complaint is a malafide attempt to mislead this Forum, the complainant has not been able to show any deficiency of services and the OPs are in no manner liable to pay the amounts.  That the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation while looking in to the cause of actions the same has been arose in the year 2012.  OPs have acted as per the Act and Regulations of the OPs Board.  Reliefs sought by the complainant are unjustified.  The complainant has attempted to make unlawful gain.  Complainant himself being default in disguise of this complaint is try to obtain the service without making the payments of the outstanding bill and is trying to waive off of the bill which the complainant is liable to pay, by making false allegations upon the OPs Board.  There is no liability to pay the compensation to the complainant as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Rest of the allegations made by the complainant is denied by OPs.1 to 3.  Hence OPs.1 to 3 prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

4. Despite service of notice OP-4 failed to appear before the Forum.  Hence OP-4 placed Ex-parte.

5. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the OPs.1 to 3 have filed their affidavit reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and objections.  Complainant and OPs.1 to 3 have produced certain documents.  Complainant and OPs.1 to 3 have produced written arguments.  We have heard the arguments of complainant and OPs and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties scrupulously and posted the case for order.

6. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

1. Whether the Complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, if so, whether complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

2.  What order?

7. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  Negative

                 Point No.2:  As per the order below

REASONS

8. Point No.1: The case of the complainant is that, the complainant has been making payment of water consumption chargers as per the demand raised by OPs without any default till June 2012.  The average meter reading used to 25000 litres per month for the entire building but during July 2012 water meter got stopped due to some technical defects.  The said defective water meter was replaced by the OPs in the year 2017 and raised a bill amount of Rs.47,135/-.  The complainant approached the OPs on several times to give a break-up details for the aforesaid arrears of pending bills but the OPs failed to provide the information to the complainant.  Further the complainant attended the water adalat on 24.07.2018 wherein again he made a representations to provide the breakup details for the aforesaid arrears of the pending bills.  But the OPs have failed to provide the said information.

9. Per contra OPs contended that OPs have calculated the average consumption of last 6 months usage.  The average consumption was comes to 25000 litres per month accordingly minimum bill was issued from October 2012 to July 2017. 

10. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant had consumed about 25000 litres of water per month from July 2012 to July 2017.  Further the OPs had replaced the defective meter in July 2017 and raised bill of Rs.58,364/- along with interest of 20%.  Further in the water adalath dated 28.07.2018/Ex-B-2, the water adalath had calculated the bill of Rs.26,913/- after waiving of an amount of Rs.31,451/- as on July 2018.  Thereafter the complainant alleged that, he is not any way entitled to pay any amount and the OPs have not given break up details till date. 

11. Admittedly in the water adalath it was resolved that the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.26,913/-.  The said amount was calculated by the OPs based on the average consumption of 25,000 litres per month from June 2012 to July 2017.  The OPs have already calculated the amount based on the average consumption.  The adalath was right in awarding said amount since the water adalath has all the knowhow with regard to calculation of the bills.  Further the complainant had also not paid the bill from June 2012 till the new meter replaced in June 2017.  Hence on the above discussion we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Further in the interest of justice and equity the complainant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.26,913/- as demanded by water adalath for the bill from June 2012 to July 2017 only.  Accordingly we answer the point No.1 in the negative.

12. Point No.2: In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:          

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 06^th day of June 2020)

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri.S.Manjunath.

Copies of documents produced on behalf of complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite parties.1 to 3:

Sri.Desai S/o Mallanna, who being working as Assistant Executive Engineer, BWSSB and authorized signatory of Board i.e., BWSSB.

Copies of documents produced on behalf of OPs.1 to 3.

Vln*