BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 19/11/2010

Date of Order : 31/10/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 600/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

Paul Gomez, Member.

1. The short facts of the complaint :

The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and had been paying water charges regularly. He was paying only minimum charge, since the consumption was only for the purpose of cooking and drinking. While so, an arrear bill to the tune of Rs. 125,643/- was issued on 28-02-2010, where average consumption is shown as 90.8 Kl. And PIC amount was enhanced to Rs. 1,450/-. The complainant lodged a complaint to the opposite party stating that the water meter was defective and it was working without any break. Accordingly, a new meter was installed on 26-05-2010 and no reading thereafter has been taken. The meter reading on 09-11-2010 is 43 Kl. On the same day, an arrear bill for Rs. 28,842/- was issued. Hence this complaint claiming several reliefs.

2. The opposite party the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority has filed version denying the allegations raised in the complaint. It is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of Kerala Water Authority with effect from 29-11-2004. The claim that the consumption is bare minimum stands denied. The complainant had remitted water charge as per the initial PIC till 2/2010. But later, it was found that consumption was high and accordingly the PIC was raised to 90.8 KL and the rate was raised to Rs. 1,4521/- and arrear bill to the tune of Rs.25,648/-. The water meter was found faulty from 15-03-2010 and the faulty meter was replaced with a new one on 05-05-2-020. After fitting a new meter, readings for a period of not less than 60 days has to be taken to arrive at the average charges. The complainant has remitted Rs. 7,000/- as part payment of the arrear bill. Fresh bill will be issued from 6/10 as soon as the reading is received. The meter was found faulty from 09/09 and a new meter was fitted only on 05-05-2010. The complainant failed to remit any amount after the payment of first instalment. Hence, the complainant was issued an arrear bill for Rs. 28,842/- with a disconnection notice. Hence it is urged to dismiss the complaint.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A8 were marked on his side. No evidence to the opposite party except Ext. B1. Both sides were heard.

4. The following points emerge for determination :-

1. Whether the opposite party is justified in issuing Exts. A6 and A7 bills?

2. What are the reliefs, if any allowable?

5. Point Nos. i. & ii. :- The crux of the controversy is that the complainant was asked to remit exorbitantly high amount while his consumption was minimum. He has stated the reasons for the minimum consumption as his having a well in his compound and the water being used only for domestic proposes in a limited manner. This contention was reiterated by him when he was examined in the Forum as PW1.

6. The principal contention of the complainant is that the water meter installed for the purpose of recording consumption was faulty. Ext. A3 would reveal this fact when he had brought this fact to the attention of the opposite party in a petition filed before them on 27-03-2009. He has stated that there was a sudden spurt in the reading on 22-08-2008 from 573 KL to 1520 KL on 23-03-2009. In the said petition, he has made a request to replace his faulty meter with a hazzle free one. But the purported reading of 23-03-2009 does not find a place in Ext. B1 meter Reading Details. According to Ext. B1, sudden jump is recorded on 10-08-2009. We cannot rely on Ext. B1 because the readings are taken not on a regular basis. Curiously reading is taken only once every year. In that background, we think Ext. A3 is more reliable where it is stated by the complainant that the meter was working without any break from 23-03-2009. Accordingly, the faulty meter was replaced on 05-05-2010. Unfortunately, the opposite party has admitted that no reading is taken since that date. In that view, we do not find any justification for issuing the impugned Exts. A6 and A7 bills. Consequently, these bills need revision. Hence, we have no hesitation in quashing those bills. In their place, fresh bill as per law has to be issued.

7. Accordingly, the complaint stands allowed as follows :-

1. Exts. A6 and A7 bill dated 31-10-2010 and notice dated 09-11-2010 respectively are set aside.

2. The opposite party is directed to issue fresh bill based on average monthly consumption calculated as per provisions of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulation 1991, from meter reading recorded by hazzle free water meter that had been installed on 05-05-2010 pertaining to period covered by Ext. A6 bill.

3. The opposite party shall adjust any excess amounts remitted by the complainant accordingly.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of October 2012.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President. Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========