CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2017
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing:30/11/2016
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/189/2016
E.Haridas,
S/o.Gopalakrishnan Nair,
Kaveri Sadan, Ayilur,
Nenmara 678 510. : Complainant
(Adv.C.Madhavankutty)
Vs
- The Assistant Engineer,
P.H.Section,
Near Tourist Bunglavu,
Kerala Water Authority,
Nenmara, Palakkad. : Opposite parties
(By Adv.K.A.Stanly James)
- The Executive Engineer,
Office of the Executive Engineer,
P.H.Section, Kerala Water Authority,
Kalmandapam, Palakkad.
(By Adv.K.A.Stanly James)
O R D E R
By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
Brief facts of the complaint.
The complainant and his wife are residing in the above address and are having water connection as per Consumer No.NMA 639/D(domestic).
The complainant is also paying bills raised by the opposite party promptly. But to his utter surprise and shock, opposite party had issued a bill dated 07/10/2016 demanding and exorbitant sum of Rs.45,416/-to be remitted with the opposite parties on or before 17/10/2016.
The reading shown in the bill raised by the opposite parties dated 07/10/2016, as per reading taken on 14/10/2016 is 1522 Kilo Liters ; similarly the previous bill issued by the opposite parties dated 03/08/2016 with reading taken on 04/08/2016 shows usage of 1326 Kilo Ltrs. So the opposite parties allege usage of 196 Kilo Ltrs to the tune of Rs.45,416 which is highly improbable and it is impossible to use such a huge volume of water by any stretch of imagination, according to the complainant.
The complainant preferred a written complaint to the 2nd opposite party regarding the issuance of exorbitant bill and 2nd opposite party directed the 1st opposite party and Asst.Executive Engineer, Chittur to call for report regarding the same. As per the report of the 1st opposite party, it is seen that the dues of water charges are from 16/09/2015 to 16/09/2016 which again is highly improbable, illegal, opposed to true facts and circumstances.
The complainant and his wife scarcely stay in the above address. Since their two married daughters are in Punjab and Dubai respectively, whatever amount of water consumed is mainly from the well situated in the house. So, it is highly unlikely to consume such a huge quantity of water and hence the bill raised by the opposite party is unjust, suspicious and liable to be set aside.
The opposite parties had given a notice to this complainant last year dated 9/7/2015 directing the complainant to install a new meter, since the previous meter installed at the house of the complainant is found to be defective. Accordingly, the complainant had remitted necessary charges for the same and the new meter was installed and thereafter issued a bill of Rs.573 /- for the period from March 2015 to April 2016. So, it is very clear that even after installing the new meter the consumption of water by the complainant is very minimum.
In the reply given by the 2nd opposite party it is stated that there is a suspected leakage in the pipeline, due to which enormous amount of water was leaked and the 2nd opposite party reduced the bill amount to the tune of Rs.18,376/-and directed the complainant to pay Rs.27,040/- which is again unjust and illegal. Since no verification was done regarding the suspected leakage, no evidence is forthcoming to show that there is leakage in the pipe line.
The complainant suspects that either the new meter installed has become faulty or there is passage of air due to which the meter installed is showing exorbitant reading.
The act of the opposite parties, of issuing an exorbitant and imaginary bill without any basis or reason amounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, according to the complainant.
Therefore the complainant is seeking following reliefs:
- To declare the bill issued by the 1st opposite party dated 07/10/2016 as null and void and hence not payable by the complainant.
- To grant Rs.20,000 towards shock, mental agony and deficiency of service of the opposite parties.
- To grant cost of this proceeding.
The complaint was admitted and notices were issued to 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
In their version opposite parties contend that except those facts admitted
here under, all other averments in the petition are hereby denied by these respondents.
This petition is not legally maintainable before this Forum. The complainant in this case is not a consumer under these respondents. Consumer No.NAM/639/D water connection is in the name of Smt.Kaveriamma. Hence this complainant is not entitled to file a complaint against these respondents.
The complainant and his wife are not the beneficiaries of the service rendered by the respondents.
On 16/09/2015, while water meter was replaced, water charge was fixed on temporary basis as an average consumption of 10 kilo liters per month amounting to Rs.42/-per month. The practice is that, periodically meter reading was taken and water charge was fixed according to consumption of water. Even though this consumer has consumed more quantity of water than minimum fixed, but he has remitted only Rs.42/-per month from 16/09/2015 to 07/02/2016. That amount is not the charge for the water actually consumed and on or after 16/09/2015 water consumption was as follows;
- 16/09/2015 - 1 kilo liter
- 04/08/2016 - 1326 kilo liter
- 14/10/2016 - 1522 kilo liter
- 02/11/2016 - 1530 kilo liter
- 06/12/2016 - 1554 kilo liter
From the above reading it is clear that monthly average consumption of water by this
consumer from 16/09/2015 to 04/08/2016 was 124.79 kilo liters and the monthly water charge to be paid was Rs.3692/-. As per reading taken on 14/10/2016 consumption of water is 98 kilo liter and water charge was Rs.2620/- and as per reading taken on 06/12/2016 consumption of water was 16 kilo liters and water charge was Rs.96/-. But the consumer has only remitted average water charge of Rs.42/- per month up to 7/2016. Hence as per the meter reading Bill No.21178230, the consumer has to remit additional charge of Rs.45,416/- for the water consumed. Opposite party has issued a bill only for the quantity of water used by the consumer, contended by the opposite parties.
After getting the additional bill, the consumer has made a representation to
1strespondent.
On 15/10/2016, the 1st respondent inspected the water connection and found leakage in pipe line. On 16/10/2016 consumer replaced the pipe line with the help of the licensed plumber. On subsequent inspection by the 1st respondent, it was found that the meter was in good working condition and the meter reading stopped when the valve was closed and there was no leak in pipe line.
On 17/10/2016 for the excess bill the consumer gave a complaint to the 2nd respondent.
As per the direction of the 2nd respondent, 1st respondent’s staff inspected the pipe connection on 02/11/2016 and found that there was no defect in the water connection or meter and the meter reading was 1530 kilo liters. Consumption of water from 14/10/2016 to 2/11/2016 was 8 kilo liters. From 02/11/2016 to 06/12/2016, average water consumption per day was 686 liters. Due to changing of defective pipe, consumption of water was reduced. As per the standing order of higher officials of Kerala Water Authority, consumer was given water leakage concession of Rs.18,376/- and was asked to remit Rs.27,040/-for the quantity of water consumed. This fact was reported to the petitioner and asked the petitioner to remit the arrears of water charge. Complainant’s water consumption was increased. Hence the complainant has to remit Rs.27,040/- towards arrears of water charge. Water charge is not fixed on permanent basis but fixed on the quantity of water consumed by the complainant.
As per order in I.A.468/2016, the complainant was ordered to deposit Rs.6,000/-with
respondents. So far that order is not complied by the complainant.
The amount shown in the bill for Rs.27,040/- dated 07/10/2016 is the actual amount
to be paid by the complainant for the water consumed by the complainant. No excess amount is claimed by the respondents as alleged by the complainant. Hence the bill is not to be declared as null and void. The complainant is not entitled to get Rs.20,000/-towards shock, mental agony and deficiency of service of respondents.
Hence it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the
above complaint with cost to respondents.
Documents filed by the complainant consisted of Chief Affidavit and those marked as Exts.A1 to A7. From the side of opposite party, Chief Affidavit and notes of arguments were filed and also documents marked as Exts.B1 to B5.
In this case the following issues are considered:
- Whether there is any negligence and/or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- If so, what is the relief?
Issues 1 & 2
The complainant has received a bill dated. 07.10.2016 on his Kerala Water Authority
water connection demanding from him an exorbitant amount for Rs.45,416/- vide Ext.A1. Ext. A2 is the bill given by Kerala Water Authority which shows complainant’s water consumption of 196 Kilo Litres which cost him Rs.45,416/-. The complainant gave a written complaint as per Ext.A6 to the second opposite party regarding issuance of the above excess bill. On receiving his complaint 2nd opposite party directed the 1st opposite party and Assistant Executive Engineer, Chittur to submit report on the above complaint given by the complainant. A memo was issued dated. 09.07.2015 by Kerala Water Authority to the complainant asking him to install a new meter because the existing meter in his house was not found to be working properly which is shown by Ext.A3. The complainant got new meter installed in his house by paying necessary charges. The complainant has also paid water/sewer/maintenance charges of Rs.573/- which is indicated by Ext.A4. The Kerala Water Authority officials of PH Sub Division, Chittur issued an inspection report which shows that the new meter installed in the house of the complainant was working properly. The certificate issued in this connection was marked as Ext.A5. The 2nd opposite party gave a written reply to the complainant which stated that the water connection of the complainant was inspected and it was found that excess consumption occurred because of leakage in the pipe line and for this leakage a benefit of Rs.18,376/- (Rupees eighteen thousand three hundred and seventy six only) was allowed to the complainant and the balance of Rs.27,040/- (Rupees twenty seven thousand forty only) was asked to be paid by the complainant. This reply letter was marked as Ext.A7.
In the version filed by opposite parties, they contend that the complainant consumed excess quantity of water and remitted only Rs.42/- per month from 16.09.2015 to 07.02.2016. Hence, excess bill No.21178230 for Rs.45,416/- (Rupees forty five thousand four hundred and sixteen only) was issued to the complainant. On 16.10.2016 on the basis of request made by the complainant for change of pipe in his house, Kerala Water Authority contractor Mr.Sasidharan visited the house of the complainant and understood that the water connection pipe between the KWA water meter and the tank was broken and water was wasted. The same was informed to the Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Nenmmara and as per his instruction the Kerala Water Authority contractor changed the pipe between the water meter and the tank and the new pipe was installed. Then, this was informed to the Assistant Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Nenmmara who visited the house of the complainant, made inspection of the new pipe line and ensured adequate supply of water in the water connection of Kerala Water Authority. All these are indicated in Ext.B1 dated. 14.12.2016. The complainant gave a complaint to the 2nd opposite party for the excess water tax bill issued to him and it was received by 2nd opposite party as indicated by Ext.B2. As per the direction of the 2nd opposite party, staff of 1st opposite party inspected the pipe connection of Kerala Water Authority in the complainant’s house on 02.11.2016 and found no defect in the water connection or water meter. This is certified by water connection verification report marked as Ext.B3. Leakage benefit was sanctioned as per order issued by Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapurm which is indicated by Ext.B4. Accordingly, 2nd opposite party gave a reply to the complaint submitted by the complainant on 17.10.2016 which stated that water leakage benefit of Rs.18,376/- (Rupees eighteen thousand three hundred and seventy six only) was given to the complainant and he was asked to remit the balance of Rs.27,040/- (Rupees twenty seven thousand and forty only). This is indicated by Ext.B5.
From the above, it is clear to us that complainant has received water tax bill dated 07/10/2016 for Rs.45,416/-(Rupees forty five thousand four hundred and sixteen only) from the opposite parties. On 16/10/2016 the water connection of the complainant was inspected by Kerala Water Authority contractor Mr.Sasidharan and found that there was water leakage
between the water meter and the tank and the pipe between the water meter and the tank was changed and a new pipe between water meter and tank was laid by Kerala Water Authority licensed plumber Mr.M.Sasidharan. Again on 02/11/2016 water connection of the complainant was inspected by the Assistant Engineer, PH Section, Nenmara and evaluated that the same was functioning properly. We also observe that consequent to complaint letter dated 17/10/2016 given by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party, 2nd opposite party reduced the water tax bill amount by Rs.18,376/-(Rupees eighteen thousand three hundred and seventy six only) and directed the complainant to pay Rs.27,040/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand and forty only). From the documentary evidences, we also understand that water meter reading on 15/10/2016 was 1522 Kilo liters and on 02/11/2016 the same was 1540 Kilo Liters which demonstrate that water meter was in proper working condition.
Hence, we view that no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice are seen committed by the opposite parties and complainant has not been able to prove deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
In the light of the above the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of June 2017. Sd/- Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma. K.P Member
SD/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- Self attested photocopy of bill dated 07/10/2016 issued by Kerala Water Authority,
Nenmara Section
Ext.A2 – Original Bill dated 03/08/2016 issued by Kerala Water Authority, Nenmara Section
Ext.A3- Self attested photocopy of Memo dated 09/07/2015 issued by Kerala Water Authority,
PH Sub Division, Chittur
Ext.A4- Self attested photocopy of receipt dated 18/5/2015 issued by Kerala Water Authority, PH Sub Division, Chittur
Ext.A5- Self attested photocopy of Inspection report dated 15/07/2015 issued by
Kerala Water Authority,PH Sub Division, Chittur to the complainant
Ext.A6- Self attested photocopy of a written complaint given by the complainant to
2nd opposite party dated 17/10/2016
Ext.A7- photocopy of letter dated. 21.11.2016 issued by 2nd opposite party to the complainant .
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1- Original Letter dated 14/12/2016 given by Kerala Water Authority Contractor to the
Asst.Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Chittur.
Ext.B2- photocopy of the complaint dated 17/10/2016 received from the complainant.
Ext.B3- photocopy of Connection verification report dated. 15.10.2016 given by Asst. Engineer,
Kerala Water Authority, PH Section Office, Nenmara .
Ext.B4- copy of order dated 26/09/2016 issued by Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority,
Trivandrum.
Ext.B5- copy of letter dated 21/11/2016 from Executive Engineer, PH Division, Palakkad.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Nil
