KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES             REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 350/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 31.01.2011

PRESENT:-

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      : MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR           :  MEMBER

APPELLANTS

   The Asst. Executive Engineer,

    Kerala water authority,

    Perinthalmanna Division, Kunnappalli P.O.,

    Perinthalmanna

                                           (Rep. by Adv. Sri. C. Sudheesh Kumar)

                                     Vs

RESPONDENT

   N. Ratnamma,

   Con. No. PT 715 (K W A),

   Hareesh Bhavan,

   Near Panjama School, Perinthalmanna P.O.

   Perinthalmanna, Pin.  679 322

                               (Rep. by Adv. Sri. B. Anil Kumar)

JUDGMENT

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      :     MEMBER

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 17.3.2010 of CDRF, Malappuram in C.C. 50/09, whereby the forum below cancelled Ext. A4 bill and the slab of Rs. 761+2 based on the bill and directed the opposite party to adjust amount paid towards Ext. A4 bill in her future bills.  The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 1,500/- as costs.  It is aggrieved by these directions that the opposite party filed the present appeal.

          2.      The case of the complainant is that she had been remitting water charges without fail.  But an additional bill was issued to her in December, 2008, which has no nexus with the quantity of water consumed by her.  From 2001 to 2004 the water supply was irregular and the opposite party executed plumbing works and the problem was solved to an extent.  After this work the complainant noticed that the meter was not rotating even when the tap was opened.  She reported the matter to the opposite party in 2004 and after that the meter reading was taken only in September 2008 and the meter reader informed the complainant that the reading is high and they took the meter for inspection and the complainant was directed to repair her water tank which had leak.  The complainant replaced her tank with a plastic tank and the plumber who connected the water supply to this tank informed the complainant that the round tap which locks the line is not fitted in the meter and on account that the meter was rotating even if the taps are closed and not in use.   On 17.12.2008, she reported  the matter to the opposite party.  He refused to hear her and an additional bill for Rs. 34,827/- was issued to her and her slab was revised by the opposite party.  She objected the above mentioned bill and she was directed to appear before the Adalath and the opposite party reduced the amount to 50%   and gave installment facility to remit the same.  On 27.1.2009 she received a notice from the opposite party demanding payment of full amount.  According to her she is not liable to pay the bill amount, since there is negligence on the part of the opposite party in not fitting the round tap and thereby she had to spend Rs.  4050/- for rectifying the defect in fitting the meter.  Hence she filed complaint before the Forum seeking for cancellation of the impugned bill issued by the opposite party and also for getting refund of Rs. 4050/- along with costs.

          3.      The opposite party filed version and contented that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party and the domestic water connection stands in the name of Sri. M. Vijayan.  He submitted that the consumer remitted the water charges in advance @ Rs. 20/- up to March 2009 and in September 2008 when the opposite party inspected the meter reading the consumption was found to be very high.   Though   the consumer stated that the meter was defective,  on inspection it was found not faulty.  Hence an additional bill for Rs. 35,861/- was issued for the period from 10/2004 to   9/2008. The Fixed charges already paid by the complainant were deducted and the complainant was liable to pay Rs. 34,827/- towards additional charges for the excess consumption based upon the meter reading. The slab was revised from Rs. 20+2 to RS. 761+2 per month because the average consumption had increased to 129KL per month On getting a petition from the complainant the opposite party directed her to appear before the adalath and in the adalath, the bill was reduced to 50% and she was also given facility to remit the amount in 10 installments but she did not remit the amount, There after a demand notice was issued.  According to the opposite party the bill issued to the complainant is proper and there was no deficiency on his part in issuing the disputed bill.  Thus the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          4.      We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.  The learned counsel for the appellant had taken a contention that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of consumer Protection Act 1986 and submitted  that there was no deficiency in service  on their part in issuing the  disputed bill which was  on the basis of the meter  reading recorded .  Moreover the respondent/complainant participated in the Adalath and entered in to a settlement deed whereby the bill was reduced to half and the complainant agreed to pay the amount in 10 equal installments.  But she did not pay the amount and thereafter filed the complaint before the Forum below.  He has also attacked the order of the Forum below  in canceling Ext. A4 bill and the direction to pay costs of Rs. 1,500/- and prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.

          5.      On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that there was failure on the part of the appellant/opposite party in properly supplying water from 2001 to 2004 to the area where the complainant is residing.  He argued for he position that the Kerala Water Authority failed to take the meter reading as stipulated in clause c and d of Regulation 13 of Kerala Water authority (Water supply) Regulation 1991.  It is stipulated that the adjustment bill in forum No. IX shall be issued once in every 6 months to the consumer.  In the present case no such adjustment bills have been issued to the consumer as stipulated in the above said regulation.  The issuance of Ext. A4 is the bill for a period for 47 months which would show the failure on the part of the opposite party in taking the meter reading in time.  Thus he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.

6.      The first point to be considered is whether the complainant is a consumer under the consumer protection Act.  The complainant being the beneficiary can be treated as consumer within the meaning of section 2(1) (d) of C.P. Act.  So no doubt that the complainant is a consumer. 

7.      Next point to be considered is as to whether there occurred any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in issuing the disputed bill.  It is noted that Ext. A4 bill was issued demanding Rs. 34,827towards the water charges for the period from 10/04 to 9/08.  The amount claimed was @ Rs. 763/- (761+2) per month.  The bill was issued on the basis of the meter reading taken in September 2008. It is noted that the opposite party has not taken meter reading as per rules  and has not issued bills accordingly. However it is the admitted fact that there was an Adalath conducted by the opposite party and the complainant has participated in the said Adalath.  As per the decision in the Adalath 50% concession was  given in the impugned bill and 10 installments had been given to the complainant for the remittance of the said amount.  It is also noted that the appellant/opposite party has given a notice dated 27.1.2009 to the consumer for remitting the amount of Rs. 18,806/- and it was consequent to the said notice the complaint is seen filed. It is found that the opposite party had tested the meter and found that there was no defect in the meter and it was found working as per Ext. B1.  It is also observed that the tank installed by the complainant had luck and she had replaced the tank subsequently as stated by the complainant herself in the complaint.  On an analysis of the entire facts and circumstances we find that the consumer is liable to pay the said amount.  It is also found that for restoring the water connection the complainant has paid Rs. 5,000/- and the said amount has to be deducted from 18,806/- As there was lapse on the part of the opposite party in taking timely meter reading, we are of the view that the complainant is not liable to pay any interest on the said amount.  The complainant/respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,806/- in 5 equal monthly installments.  The costs of Rs. 1,500/- which  was ordered by the Forum below is reasonable and the same is sustained.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed in part thereby the complainant is directed to pay a sum of RS. 13,806(18806-5000) in 5 equal monthly installments,   after one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum.  The costs of Rs. 1,500/- which was ordered by the Forum below is sustained.  As far as the present appeal is concerned there shall be no order as to costs.  

                                   VALSALA SARANGADHARAN  :    MEMBER

                                    S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR   :    MEMBER

ST