By Sri. Chandran, Alachery, Member:-
The complaint filed against the Opposite Party to caused the additional bill issued to him by the Opposite Party towards his water connection.
2. Brief of the complaint: The complainant is a customer of Opposite Party and he has been using water through water connection No.KM 529/D for more than 20 years. More over, he is using only minimum water for the last 20 years by remitting minimum charge in advance with the Opposite Party. On 23.01.2013 when the Complainant reached the office of Opposite Party for remitting water bill, the Opposite Party demanded the Complainant to remit an additional bill of Rs.4,360/- as water charge. Aggrieved by the above disconnection notice this complaint is filed.
3. Opposite Party entered in appearance and filed version. In the version Opposite Party stated that the Complainant is a consumer under KM 529/D of Kerala Water Authority Kalpetta office since 1992. He is a consumer who remits water charge in advance. He remit Rs.22/- only for 5000 Litre of water, If there is excess use of water as per slab, the customer has to remit water for each 1000 litre. He is not using 5KL minimum water. He used 9/2010 to 11/2011 - 25000 Litre and 12/2011 to 5/2012 - 40000 Litre of water. It is stated in ledger. He was using 14000 Litre of water all in months. So there is excess use of water by the Complainant. Thereafter the Opposite Party submitted that he had no oral evidence in this case.
4. On considering the complaint and affidavit filed by Complainant the following points are to be considered.
1. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the additional bill of Rs.4,360/-
charged against him by the Opposite Party?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- To prove the Complainant's case, in addition to complaint , the Complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has examined and marked Ext.A1 to A4 and X1 series (8 in numbers). Ext.A1 is the disconnection notice issued by Opposite Party to the Complainant. Ext.A2 to A4 are the payment receipt dated 03.12.2009, 20.12.2010 and 19.01.2012. Ext.A1 proves that the Opposite Party had taken steps to disconnect the water connection provided to the Complainant. The Complainant had a clear case that there is complaint in the meter and there was no excess use of water. It was duly informed to the meter reader. More over the Complainant stated that he had given complaint to the Opposite Party about the mistake of meter and requested for an inspection. But Opposite Party not responded to that complaint. The Complainant produced relevant page of Kerala Water
Authority (duties of Employees) Regulation 1999 where in the para XIV shows the duties and responsibility of Meter Inspector. It states that the Meter Inspector shall conduct periodical inspections of water meters and submit reports regarding the proper maintenance and correctness of meter readings. Here in this case the Opposite Party did not conduct any inspection or produce any such reports before the Forum to prove the above contentions. Opposite Party produced some document ledger extract which is marked as Ext.X1 series which shows the meter reading and fixed rent and other rent, in which the meter reading is seen taken on 7-92, 11-92, 7-93, 3-94, 11-94, 5-95, 11-95, 5-96, 11-96, 5-97, 11-97, 5-98, 11-98, 5-99, 11-99, 5-2000, 11-2000, 5-02, 11-02, 5-03, 11-2003, 12-2005, 5-06, 11-06, 11-2008, 6-07, 3-08, 11.08, 8-2010, 11-2010, 5-12, 12-12, 2-2013 from which it can presume that meter reading is not taken every month or on a periodical basis but taken on irregularly from 3 months to 25 months gaps, the disputed period from 9/2010 to 10/2012 between 25 months only two time reading was taken ie on 11-2010 and 5-2012 and the arrear bill amount from 9/2010 is issued on 05.11.2012 ie after two year and two months, it is a clear violation of Kerala Water Authority (duties of employees) regulation 1999. No oral evidence is adduced by the Opposite Party in this case. So it is doubtful regarding the correctness of meter reading. There is no document before the Forum to state that the Opposite Party had conducted periodical inspections of alleged water meter. So there is nothing to disbelieve the Complainant's case. Hence we find that there is clear deficiency of service from the side of the Opposite Party and the complaint is eligible for the cancellation of additional bill issued by the Opposite Party. The point No.1 is decided accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since the relief prayed in the complaint is only for the cancellation of the additional bill the same relief is allowed and no order as to cost. The point No.2 is found accordingly.
In the above circumstances, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is hereby directed to cancel the excess bill of Rs.4,360/- (Rupees Four thousand Three hundred and Sixty) only issued against the Complainant wide letter No.595/11 dated 05.11.2012 which is marked as Ext.A1 and continue the water supply to the Complainant. No order as to cost. The Opposite Party shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 1st day of January 2014.
Date of filing:06.02.2013.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Balakrishnan Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Disconnection Notice. dt:05.11.2012.
A2. Receipt. dt:03.12.2009.
A3. Receipt. dt:20.12.2010.
A4. Receipt dt:19.01.2012.
Exhibit for the Opposite Party:
X1 series (8 in numbers) Copy of Consumer Personal Ledger (CPL).
