BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 10/05/2012

Date of Order : 21/12/2013

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 286/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts leading to this complaint are as follows :-

The complainant availed a water connection of the opposite party in 1979 and had been paying the water charges regularly. In 1998, the water meter became defunct. At the request of the complainant, the opposite party replaced the water meter. The replaced meter also went out of order. Though the complainant informed the opposite party regarding the defect of the meter, no action was taken by the opposite party. Thereafter on 21-06-2002, the opposite party disconnected the water supply to the connection and the water meter was dismantled on 09-01-2004. In the mean time, the opposite party issued a bill to the tune of Rs. 51,409/- for the period from 19-02-1998 to 22-07-2003 calculating the bi-monthly consumption of water as 129 KL. against the actual consumption of 13 KL. On 28-08-2006, the opposite party reconnected the water supply on deposit of Rs. 10,000/- and also replaced the water meter. The opposite party informed the complainant that water charges for the period from 10-02-1998 till 28-08-2006 would be calculated by assessing the consumption of water by the complainant for 6 months from the date of replacement of the new meter. The opposite party observed the consumption of water for 10 months and served bills dated 22-02-2007, 24-04-2007 and 21-06-2007. The average bi-monthly consumption comes to 26.8 KL. Since, the opposite party disconnected the water supply to the residence from 21-06-2002 till 28-08-2006, the arrear comes to Rs. 3,531.60 only. But on 07-08-2007, the opposite party demanded Rs. 46,685/-. Thus, the complainant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The Hon'ble High Court directed the opposite party to consider the appeal filed by the complainant. The Appellate Authority has not passed any orders. The opposite party went on issuing various bills claiming exorbitant amounts. Again, the complainant approached the Hon'ble High Court. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the opposite party issued a bill dated 07-03-2012 for 50,476/-. The opposite party arrived at the amount on wrong calculations. Thus, the complainant is before us to get the disputed bill set aside and also claiming compensation and costs of the proceedings from the opposite party. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite party is as follows :-

This complaint is not maintainable in this Forum, since the complainant already approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala with regard to the same cause of action. Since the complainant failed to pay the bill amount towards water charges, the water connection was disconnected in June 2002. thereafter, the 1^st instalment of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by the complainant on 28-08-2006 for reconnection. The monthly long average of consumption was 128 KL between 12-10-1995 and 23-01-1999. At the time of disconnection, an amount of Rs. 51,400/- was outstanding upto June 2002. The defective meter was replaced on 28-08-2006. Thereafter, the complainant purposefully reduced the consumption of water to show that the consumption during the meter faulty period was less. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the opposite party remitted the bill and issued a fresh bill dated 08-03-2012. The complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the disputed bill.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A14 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable in this Forum?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the disputed bill set aside and a fresh bill issued treating the bimonthly consumption of water?

3. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings?

5. Point No. i. :- The opposite party has raised a contention that the complainant does not really have a locus-standi in approaching this Forum for a redress of this complaint. It is rather surprising that the opposite party has drawn such a conclusion, since what the Hon'ble High Court has taken into consideration and adjudged is only the interim direction which would help the opposite party to come to a final conclusion which fortunately has been done which holds that the apprehension of the opposite party in this regard is rather unfounded.

6. Point No. ii. :- Admittedly on receipt of Ext. A9 series bills, the complainant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by filing WP (C) No. 32555/2011. Neither parties produced the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in this Forum for our perusal. It is not in dispute that as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, Ext. A12 the impugned calculation statement for Rs. 50,476/- has been issued by the opposite party. The covering letter appended to the calculation statement reads as follows :-

“As per the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, the Executive Engineer is directed to conduct an personal hearing and to settle the complaint as early as possible. As per the decision in hearing on 28/10/11, the undersigned is directed to give revised bill based on the reading of new meter fitted on 28/8/2006 and also to give details statement of calculation the bill amount.

As per the direction of Executive Engineer, the revised bill and details of calculation are attached herewith.”

The above letter attached to the calculation statement goes to show that the calculation statement is based on the readings in the water meter admittedly replaced on 28-08-2006. The above conduct of the opposite party is legal and sustainable in law, especially in view of Regulation 17 (e) of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations 1991, which is as under :-

“17. Testing of water meter already installed and their replacement.

(e) If in the opinion of the Executive Engineer, the nature of an appeal, made as per clause (d) above is exceptional he may arrange a new meter to be fixed at the premises at the cost of the owner or occupier of the premises preferring the appeal and observe the readings on the same for a period not less than 60 days to arrive at the average charges and shall fix this average water charge with retrospective effect from a date from which, in the opinion to the Executive Engineer the change in the nature and pattern of consumption of water at the premises might have occurred of. In all cases of revisions made as per appeals mentioned in this clause, the decision of the Executive Engineer regarding the nature of the appeal, the date of effect of provision and the average water charges shall be final.”

It is evident that the opposite party has duly complied with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in letter and spirit and decided to rely on the fresh meter reading, quite appreciative. However, the calculation statement in Ext. A12 does not seem to be exhaustive and self-explanatory which we feel can be rectified with the following directions :

1. We set aside Ext. A12 calculation statement.

2. The opposite party shall issue a fresh bill as per Regulation 17 (e) based on the readings in the water meter fixed on 28-08-2006 retrospectively for the period from 19-08-1998 to 28-08-2006 excluding the period of disconnection of the water connection.

3. The opposite party shall issue a self-explanatory and exhaustive calculation statement along with the bill to the complainant.

4. The opposite party shall adjust the remittances made by the complainant for the above period with the bill to be issued to the complainant.

5. The complainant shall pay the regular bills and the water charge arrears if any as per the consumption of water from 28-08-2006 onwards.

6. The order in I.A. No. 289/2012 is made absolute till the issuance of the fresh bill and compliance of the same without complaint.

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

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of December 2013.

Forwarded/By order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========