IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 17th day of August, 2021.
Filed on 12-06-2019
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.136/2019
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Smt.Lilly The Asst. Executive Engineer
W/o Sureshkumar Kerala Water Authority
Kallasseril Puthuval P.H Section, Kayamkulam
Ramanchery Alappuzha
Arattupuzha, Alappuzha (Adv.Sri.Joseph Mathew)
(Adv.Baby Sreeja.J)
ORDER
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
Brief facts of the complaint is as follows:-
The complainant’s husband is a consumer of the opposite party. The complainant has been promptly remitting the water charges till 2018. The opposite party had issued an arrear bill for Rs.34,085/- (thirty four thousand eighty five only) on 16.04.2019 to the complainant. Later it is learnt that they arrived said calculation on the basis of average consumption of water during the period of October 2018 to December 2018 and issued bill for 21 years, when water connection had taken by the complainant. The complainant alleged that opposite party is bound to take meter reading time to time and issue bill accordingly. But they did not do that and issue exorbitant bill without prior information to the complainant. The said acts of opposite party causes severe mental agony to the complainant. Hence complainant approaches this Commission for cancelling the adjustment amount as Rs.34,085/- claimed by the opposite party and also for compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.
2. Version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The opposite party contented that the husband of the complainant is a consumer of them. The complainant’s last remittance of water charges was on 30.10.2017. As per the PIC (Provisional Invoice Card) the monthly water consumption as 11 KL and tariff was fixed as Rs.47/-. On 23.05.2015 new water meter was replaced in the premises of the complainant and started bimonthly billing system on 15.08.2017.
After replacement of the faulty meter with new one the readings recorded are as follows:-
23.05.2015 - 1 KL (Initial reading)
15.08.2017 - 1449 KL
18.12.2018 - 2238 KL
21.02.2019 - 2332 KL
17.04.2019 - 2426 KL
25.06.2019 - door locked
22.08.2019 - 2652 KL
The demand cum disconnection notices are generated through e-abacus portal. The said billing details in e-abacus portal are attached along with version. As per the available reading on 15.08.2017, complainant used 1449 KL water. So the average consumption of water per month is 54.05 KL. Accordingly for excess consumption, additional bill issued as per Water Supply Regulation 13 (d). Hence the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint. Therefore the complaint has no merit and it is to be dismissed.
3. In the view of the above pleadings the following points that arise our determination are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to get the relief sought for?
3. Relief and cost?
3. Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, Ext.A1 and A2 were marked. Opposite party did not adduce oral as well as documentary evidence. Both sides absent taken for orders.
4. Point Nos. 1 and 2
For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these points are considered together. The main grievance of the complainant is that an exorbitant amount claimed by way of additional bills by opposite party were illegal.
Admittedly the complainant’s husband is a consumer of the water authority. There is no dispute that the faulty water meter replaced with a new one was on 23.05.15 and before that the complainant’s remittance of water charges as per the tariff in PIC fixed as Rs.47. It is admitted that after the installation of water meter on 23.05.15, the next reading had taken only after 2 years that was on 15.08.2017. After that bimonth consumption of billing system started and found that the monthly consumption of water increased than the tariff fixed. It was found that complainant used 54.05 KL water per month. However, it is admitted that the additional bill issued for the period from 23.05.2015 onwards. It is evident from records the amount claimed for excess consumption of water is in 2019. Opposite party has no explanation as to why the reading has not taken till 15.08.2017. Without any hesitation they pleaded in their version that they issued bill as per meter reading. It is not known how the opposite party can collect amount prior to 3 years. In other words it appears that water authority had lost sight of limitation Act which clearly barred due prior to 3 years. Admittedly the amount claimed from 23.05.2015 ie, about 4 years prior to the date of bill which is hit by limitation and so complainant is entitled to get an order to set aside Ext.A1 bill. However, this order will not bar for issuing fresh bill and collect the amount legally entitled, by the opposite party. The facts and circumstances of the case we are refrain from ordering compensation.
5. Point No.3
In the result the complaint is allowed in part and direct as follows:-
- Ext.A1 bill dated 16.06.2019 for Rs.37,829/- (Thirty seven thousand eight hundred and twenty nine only) is hearby set aside and the opposite party can issue fresh bill and collect water charges as per law.
- Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.1000/- towards litigation cost from the opposite party. It shall either be paid to the complainant or to deduct from future bill amount.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 17th day of August, 2021.
Sd/-Smt.Lekhamma C K (Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Smt.Lilly V (Witness)
PW2 - Sri.Suresh Kumar S (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Demand cum disconnection notice dtd.18.06.2019
Ext.A2 - Demand cum disconnection notice dtd.16.04.2019
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
